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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 12,14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 27, 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yue (2024/0422721) in view of Hu (2025/0106815) and Barbu (WO2023/134941).
Regarding claim 1, Yue discloses a user equipment (Target UE) which comprises one or more memories, transceivers, and processors (Figure 20) where the processor is communicatively coupled to the memory and transceiver. Yue discloses that the processor is configured to, transmit to a plurality of UE’s (Anchor UEs) a request capabilities message for sidelink positioning (SL-Pos message), wherein the request message includes a group identifier, receiving a plurality of sidelink positioning capabilities from the plurality of UEs, wherein the message includes the first group identifier and one or more capabilities of the corresponding UEs (para 227-241, the use of multiple anchor UEs as well as the target UE). In particular, note Para 305-313, target UE broadcasts a request for positioning, and receiving from the anchor UEs the results. Also note para 316, use of groupcast, wherein the group of anchor UEs is broadcast. Yue does not discloses transmitting a message indicating that one or more of the plurality of UEs are not to participate in the sidelink positioning session.
However, Hu teaches in an analogous art, the use of sidelink positioning, in which certain UEs are unable to participate in the process and signals are broadcast based on this determination (para 170 to 176, failure or incompatible UEs are part of the sidelink positioning process). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to note incompatible UEs from a sidelink positioning process in order to prevent erroneous data in the positioning.
The combination of Yue and Hu fails to disclose the sending to a plurality of UEs based on the capabilities that they cannot participate in the process. However, Barbu teaches in a sidelink position process (Figure 6), that messages are transmitted to a plurality of UEs based on their capabilities, they are removed from the positioning session (Step 624-626/624-646 excluding conflicting configurations of UEs, para 65-78). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to broadcast to devices that cannot participate in the process to reduce control signaling in the system during the positioning process.
Regarding claim 2, Yue does not disclose that the capabilities of the anchor are incompatible. Hu teaches that capabilities of each of the one or more anchor UEs are incompatible with the performance of the sidelink position session (para 170). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include information if a UE is incompatible in order to denote erroneous measurements.
Regarding claim 4,ue discloses that the first group identifier is included in the message (group cast identifier denotes the anchor UEs).
Regarding claim 6 and 18, Yue further discloses the message is a request location information for sidelink positioning (SL-POS message).
Regarding claim 8 and 20, the combination further teaches that the message is a modification message (Barbu, removing from configuration, Figure 6).
Regarding claims 12, 16, and 27, Yue further discloses the first group identifier is a managed groupcast identifier (para 316, the use of groupcast identifiers in the process, which also reads on a message including a first group identifier)
Regarding claim 14, the combination discloses the use of a first user equipment (Yue, target UE) and second UEs (anchor UEs) comprising one or more memories, transceivers, and processors(Figure 20) where the processor is communicatively coupled to the memory and transceiver. Yue discloses that the processor is configured to, transmit to a plurality of UE’s (Anchor UEs) a request capabilities message for sidelink positioning (SL-Pos message), wherein the request message includes a group identifier, receiving a plurality of sidelink positioning capabilities from the plurality of UEs, wherein the message includes the first group identifier and one or more capabilities of the corresponding UEs (para 227-241, the use of multiple anchor UEs as well as the target UE). In particular, note Para 305-313, target UE broadcasts a request for positioning, and receiving from the anchor UEs the results. Also note para 316, use of groupcast, wherein the group of anchor UEs is broadcast. Yue does not discloses transmitting a message indicating that one or more of the plurality of UEs are not to participate in the sidelink positioning session.
However, Hu teaches in an analogous art, the use of sidelink positioning, in which certain UEs are unable to participate in the process and signals are broadcast based on this determination (para 170 to 176, failure or incompatible UEs are part of the sidelink positioning process). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to note incompatible UEs from a sidelink positioning process in order to prevent erroneous data in the positioning.
The combination of Yue and Hu fails to disclose the sending to a plurality of UEs based on the capabilities that they cannot participate in the process. However, Barbu teaches in a sidelink position process (Figure 6), that messages are transmitted to a plurality of UEs based on their capabilities, they are removed from the positioning session (Step 624-626/624-646 excluding conflicting configurations of UEs, para 65-78). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to broadcast to devices that cannot participate in the process to reduce control signaling in the system during the positioning process.
Regarding claim 22, Yue fails to disclose that the first UE is one of the more UEs that does not take part in the positioning process. Hu further teaches that the first UE is one of the more UEs that does not take part in the positioning process (para 192-193, Hu discloses that if no results are received, an error is reported and the process doesn’t complete). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the first UE to not take place in the process in order to remove measurements which aren’t valid.
Regarding claims 29-30, the combination discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a first and second user equipment, and are rejected given the same reasoning as given in the rejection of claims 1 and 14 above.
Claims 3, 7, 9-11, 13, 19, 21, 25-26, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yue, Hu, and Barbu as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Fischer (WO 2024/173743).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
Regarding claim 3 and 15, the combination discloses all the particulars of the claim except the message indicating one or more UEs not to participate including identifiers of the one or more UEs. However, Fischer teaches the use of a sidelink positioning protocol, in which the identifiers are used in the message about non-participating UEs (para 198-199, UE group after modification is notified). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the UEs identifiers in order to target specific UEs for measurement.
Regarding claims 7 and 19,Fischer further teaches that the provide assistance message is a SLPP provide assistance message, and that the request location is a SLPP request location information message (Figure 15, #s 6c/d and #7).
Regarding claim 9-11, and 21 Fischer also teaches that the modification message is a SLPP message (Figure 15, #4) and that after modification, a request location information goes to the remaining UEs (Step #7 happens after modification #4). The claims are rejected for the same reasoning as given above in the rejection of claim 3
Regarding claims 13 and 28, Fischer also teaches the use of SLPP request capabilities messages and the plurality of positioning capabilities messages are a plurality of SLPP provide capabilities messages(Figure 15, #6a/6b). The claims are rejected for the same reasoning as above in claim 3.
Regarding claims 5, 17, and 24, the combination discloses all the particulars of the claim except including a second group identifier for the remaining UEs other than the one or more UEs. However, Fischer teaches the use of a second group (Group 4130 is a second group of remaining UEs after the first request 4110 is sent to all the UEs and Figure 15, initiator UE is part of the group of UEs performing SLPP measurements). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a smaller subset of UEs in order to reduce the amount of signaling in the positioning process.
Regarding claims 25-26, the combination fails to disclose receiving from the second UE a request location information message (being a SLPP request location message) and transmitting to the second UE a provide location (SLPP provide location message). Fischer further teaches that the provide assistance message is a SLPP provide assistance message, and that the request location is a SLPP request location information message (Figure 15, #s 6c/d and #7).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is 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.
Regarding claim 23, the prior art of record fails to disclose nor reasonably suggest that a second UE sends a request location information message but refraining from responding based on the first UE being one of the one or more UEs are not participating in the sidelink positioning system, and receiving from a second UE, a provide location information message, where the provide location message does not include positioning results for the first UE.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sirotkin (2023/0125160) disclose sidelink positioning with neighbor signaling.
Wu (11916825) disclose a sidelink positioning reference signal and grant system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM GEORGE TROST IV whose telephone number is (571)272-7872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7a-4p, Fridays 7a-2p.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
WILLIAM GEORGE TROST IV
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2641
/WILLIAM G TROST IV/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641