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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, 15-19 and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos et al. US 2022/0109466 A1 in view of Jiang et al. US 2025/0030511 A1.
Claims 1 and 8:
Manolakos discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a User Equipment (UE) (See fig. 3A; 332), comprising: a processing system that includes one or more processors and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors (See fig. 3A; 332), the processing system is configured to cause the UE to: transmit an indication of a capability of the UE to perform receive frequency hopping to measure a downlink positioning reference signal (DL-PRS) (See fig. 16; 1620 and para 273, UE determines a capability of the UE perform receive frequency hopping to measure a downlink positioning reference signal (DL-PRS) across a plurality of frequency hops. Also see para 274, UE transmits an indication of the capability to a network component), where the indication of the capability includes a possible number of frequency hops (See para 282, the capability indicated at 1620 or determined at 1710 may comprise a number of frequency hops that the UE can process over a particular time-domain window), a hop overlap for PRS measurement (See para 279, the capability indicated at 1620 or determined at 1710 may comprise a minimum sub-band overlap between consecutive frequency hops); and receive PRS configuration information from a network node, the PRS configuration information associated with the indication of the capability (See para 302, receiving a DL-PRS configuration that is based in part on the indication; fig. 17; 1720).
Manolakos doesn’t disclose indication of the capability includes a maximum supported PRS bandwidth (BW) with frequency hopping.
Jiang discloses indication of the capability includes a maximum supported PRS bandwidth (BW) with frequency hopping (See paras 77-79, UE includes maximum supported PRS bandwidth with frequency hopping in a report to the network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Manolakos with the teachings of Jiang to improve the method disclosed by Manolakos by including the feature of indicating maximum supported PRS BW with frequency hopping. The motivation to combine would have been to achieve high level of accuracy with low bandwidth.
Claims 15 and 22:
Manolakos discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a Base Station (BS) (See fig. 2A, eNB/gNB), comprising: a processing system that includes one or more processors and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors (See figs. 3A/3B, processing system and memory), the processing system configured to cause the BS to: receive an indication of a capability of a User Equipment (UE) to perform receive frequency hopping to measure a downlink positioning reference signal (DL-PRS) (See fig. 16; 1620 and para 273, UE determines a capability of the UE perform receive frequency hopping to measure a downlink positioning reference signal (DL-PRS) across a plurality of frequency hops. Also see para 274, UE transmits an indication of the capability to a network component), where the indication of the capability includes a possible number of frequency hops (See para 282, the capability indicated at 1620 or determined at 1710 may comprise a number of frequency hops that the UE can process over a particular time-domain window), a hop overlap for PRS measurement (See para 279, the capability indicated at 1620 or determined at 1710 may comprise a minimum sub-band overlap between consecutive frequency hops); and transmit PRS configuration information to the UE, the PRS configuration information associated with the indication of the capability (See para 302, receiving a DL-PRS configuration that is based in part on the indication; fig. 17; 1720).
Manolakos doesn’t disclose indication of the capability includes a maximum supported PRS bandwidth (BW) with frequency hopping.
Jiang discloses indication of the capability includes a maximum supported PRS bandwidth (BW) with frequency hopping (See paras 77-79, UE includes maximum supported PRS bandwidth with frequency hopping in a report to the network).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Manolakos with the teachings of Jiang to improve the method disclosed by Manolakos by including the feature of indicating maximum supported PRS BW with frequency hopping. The motivation to combine would have been to achieve high level of accuracy with low bandwidth.
Claims 2 and 9:
Manolakos discloses perform receive frequency hopping to measure the DL-PRS across a plurality of frequency hops (See fig. 13 and para 268-270, measurement of a sub-band that overlaps in part with a sub-band of an adjacent frequency hop. These sub-band measurements can be stitched to device a measurement of the entire DL-PRS transmission. Also see para 273, the transmission bandwidth (e.g., 100 MHz) of the DL-PRS comprises at least each sub-band (e.g., 20 MHz sub-bands associated with the plurality of frequency hops)).
Claims 16 and 23:
Manolakos discloses that the processing system is further configured to cause the BS to: receive, from the UE, a report of the DL-PRS measured across a plurality of frequency hops (See fig. 13 and para 268-270, measurement of a sub-band that overlaps in part with a sub-band of an adjacent frequency hop. These sub-band measurements can be stitched to device a measurement of the entire DL-PRS transmission. Also see para 273, the transmission bandwidth (e.g., 100 MHz) of the DL-PRS comprises at least each sub-band (e.g., 20 MHz sub-bands associated with the plurality of frequency hops)).
Claims 3, 10, 17 and 24:
Manolakos discloses a UE measurement delay requirement is derived from the indication of the capability (See para 303, a measurement period associated with the DL-PRS configuration is based at least in part upon the indication).
Claims 4, 11, 18 and 25:
Manolakos discloses that the measurement delay requirement is defined according to the UE measuring one or more PRS combs per PRS resource (See para 282, first resources per slot and second resources per measurement period. Also see para 284, the measurement period is based upon a number of DL-PRS instances associated with the plurality of frequency hops).
Claims 5, 12, 19 and 26:
Manolakos discloses that the total PRS BW measured by the UE is limited by at least one of a number of PRS resource repetitions with a measurement gap, a retuning time between hops, a maximum BW per hop, and an amount of frequency overlap between hops (See para 278, 50% overlap. Also see para 273, the transmission bandwidth (e.g., 100 MHz) of the DL-PRS comprises at least each sub-band (e.g., 20 MHz sub-bands associated with the plurality of frequency hops).
Claim(s) 6, 13, 20 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos et al. in view of Jiang et al. and Akkarakaran et al. US 2021/058890 A1.
Claim 6:
Manolakos in view of Jiang doesn’t disclose that the processing system is further configured to cause the UE to: report a total PRS BW measured by the UE with frequency hopping according to the PRS configuration information.
Akkarakaran discloses that the processing system is further configured to cause the UE to: report a total PRS BW measured by the UE with frequency hopping according to the PRS configuration information (See para 131, UE reports PRS bandwidth to the BS. Also see para 105, frequency hopping for PRS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Manolakos in view of Jiang with the teachings of Akkarakaran to improve the method disclosed by Manolakos in view of Jiang by including the feature of reporting total PRS BW. The motivation would have to let the location server know of the PRS bandwidth that the UE used to generate the measurement report.
Claims 13, 20 and 27:
Manolakos in view of Jiang doesn’t disclose receiving a report of a total PRS BW measured by the UE according to the PRS configuration information.
Akkarakaran discloses receiving a report of a total PRS BW measured by the UE with frequency hopping according to the PRS configuration information (See para 131, UE reports PRS bandwidth to the BS. Also see para 105, frequency hopping for PRS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Manolakos in view of Jiang with the teachings of Akkarakaran to improve the method disclosed by Manolakos in view of Jiang by including the feature of reporting total PRS BW. The motivation would have to let the location server know of the PRS bandwidth that the UE used to generate the measurement report.
Claim(s) 7, 14, 21 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos et al. in view of Jiang et al. and Futurewei: “On positioning of RedCap UE in Rel-18”, R1-2304368 (Applicant admitted prior art).
Claims 7 and 14:
Manolakos doesn’t disclose that the processing system is further configured to cause the UE to:
report an indication that a measurement with frequency hopping has been performed according to the PRS configuration information.
Futurewei discloses that the processing system is further configured to cause the UE to:
report an indication that a measurement with frequency hopping has been performed according to the PRS configuration information (Page 1, 2.1, FFS: indication of how many received hops which received hops were used in the measurement report).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Manolakos with the teachings of Futurewei to improve the method disclosed by Manolakos by including the feature of reporting indication of hops. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable accurate positioning of the UE.
Claims 21 and 28:
Manolakos doesn’t disclose that receiving, from the UE, a reporting of an indication that a measurement with frequency hopping has been performed according to the PRS configuration information.
Futurewei discloses that receiving, from the UE, a reporting of an indication that a measurement with frequency hopping has been performed according to the PRS configuration information (Page 1, 2.1, FFS: indication of how many received hops which received hops were used in the measurement report).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Manolakos in view of Jiang with the teachings of Futurewei to improve the method disclosed by Manolakos in view of Jiang by including the feature of reporting indication of hops. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable accurate positioning of the UE.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, 15 and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jiang et al. US 20250030511 A1 discloses for the purpose of DL PRS processing capability, the duration K of DL PRS symbols may be determined based on at least one of: enablement of reference signal frequency hopping, a number of reference signal frequency hops, or the total bandwidth of the first frequency hop and the second frequency hop. Oteri et al. US 20240056249 A1 discloses signaling positioning capabilities for reduced capacity UEs, PRS and SRS configurations for frequency hopping with overlapped resources, downlink PRS muting, positioning support with other reference, and PRS and SRS adaptation. Thus, for example, the embodiments described herein address problems associated with how to define and/or modify positioning capabilities modified to support RedCap UEs (e.g., UEs that may have smaller bandwidths and require frequency hopping), what configuration modifications are needed to accommodate frequency hopping with overlap, how to modify and/or update a muting procedure/configuration to accommodate RedCap UEs, how to use existing reference signals to support positioning for RedCap UEs, and how to adapt a PRS/SRS to accommodate the reduced capabilities (and possibly requirements) for a RedCap UE.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASHIM S BHATTI whose telephone number is (571)270-7748. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at 571-270-3770. 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.
HASHIM S. BHATTI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2472
/HASHIM S BHATTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475