DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/07/2026 has been entered.
Examiner Note
Examiner has tried to contact applicant representative Thomas Anderson on April 23rd and April 24th, 2026 and to discuss possible amendments for speedy prosecution, but did not receive any response.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 10-12, 16, 21, 22, 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da et al. Pub. No. US 20200408871 A1 in view of Gunnarsson et al. Pub. No. US 20200344713 A1 and further in view of Rao et al. Pub. No. US 20250088883 A1
Regarding Claim 1, Da teaches a first UE (user equipment) comprising:
a transceiver; a memory; and a processor, communicatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory, configured to:
communicate (Para 126, The vehicle user terminals can also send PRS and SPRS to each other i.e., communicate), via the transceiver (Fig. 16 Unit 1610, transceiver), via a transceiver in accordance with a first radio access technology(Para 126, The vehicle user terminals can also provide their PRS and SPRS configuration information to each other through direct links (sidelinks). The vehicle user terminals can also provide PRS and SPRS configuration information of their cells to each other through direct links (sidelinks) i.e., first radio access technology), with a second UE to at least one of instruct the second UE, or agree with the second UE, as to a first PRS measurement (positioning reference signal measurement) to be made by the second UE (Para 126, The vehicle user terminals can also provide their PRS and SPRS configuration information to each other through direct links (sidelinks) i.e., with a second UE to identify a first PRS measurement (positioning reference signal measurement) to be made by the second UE);
receive, via the transceiver from the second UE via sidelink communication (Para 126, sidelink or direct link), at least one second wireless signal including first position information based on the first PRS measurement (Para 127, Each vehicle user terminal can measure PRS and SPRS according to the received PRS and SPRS configuration information of each neighboring cell and the PRS and SPRS configuration information of other vehicle user terminals i.e., first position information based on the first PRS measurement); and
transmit, via the transceiver, the first position information (Para 132, The UE measures PRS and SPRS to obtain RSTD, RSRP and SPRS-CP measurement values, and reports the RSTD, RSRP and SPRS-CP measurement values to the positioning server i.e., transmit via the transceiver to a network entity, the first position information).
Du teaches that communicate via the transceiver in accordance with a first radio access technology with the second UE and transmit via transceiver to the network entity the position information but does not specifically teach
communicate via the transceiver in accordance with a first radio access technology with the second UE and transmit to the network entity and transmit to the network entity, using at least one third wireless signal via transceiver in accordance with a second radio access technology, the first position information.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gunnarsson teaches from Fig. 11 Step S410-S450 that S410: The second device 120 receives a positioning reference signal from the first device 110. One way to implement step S410 is to perform step S206. S420: The second device 120 initiates a transmission of a positioning ranging request to the first device 110. One way to implement step S420 is to perform step S214. S430: The second device 120 receives a positioning ranging response from the first device 110, and is able to estimate the range to the first device 110 based on the time the request was transmitted, and the estimated time of arrival of the response, in consideration of the needed processing time in the first device 110. One way to implement step S430 is to perform step S216. S440: The second device 120 estimates characteristic properties from the received positioning reference signal. One way to implement step S440 is to perform step S208. S450: The second device 120 reports the estimated characteristic properties and an association thereof with the first device 110 to a network node in the communications network 100 One way to implement step S450 is to perform step S210 i.e., communicate via the transceiver in accordance with a first radio access technology with the second UE and transmit to the network entity and transmit to the network entity, using at least one third wireless signal via transceiver in accordance with a second radio access technology, the first position information (Para 116-120).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Du with the method of Gunnarsson so as to provide a good performance and capacity for a given communication protocol in a communications network and is advantageous for devices in the communication network to have low energy consumption (see Gunnarsson Para 4).
Du and Gunnarsson does not specifically teach determine a proximity of the second UE to the first UE and transmit to a network entity based on the proximity of the second UE to the first UE being within a threshold amount.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rao teaches from Fig. 8 and Para 339 that WTRU determines a distance between the anchor WTRU and each member WTRU, at 820 i.e., determine a proximity of the second UE to the first UE. Rao further teaches from Fig. 8 and Para 339 that The anchor WTRU may determined the distance using SL measurements for example. Then the anchor WTRU selects a set of member WTRUs based on the determined distances and distance threshold values (e.g. select members WTRUs that are located at a distances greater than a distance threshold value) and transmits the PRS configs associated with the distance threshold values to the selected member WTRUs via SL, at 830. Then the anchor WTRU and the selected member WTRUs each perform PRS measurements, at 840. Next the selected member WTRUs each send a measurement report to the anchor WTRU, at 850. The measurement reports may be received via SL, from the selected member UEs and the measurement report may contain PRS measurements (e.g. RSRP of PRS) associated to the indicated PRS configuration. Finally the anchor WTRU may transmit, to the LMF, the measurement report including PRS measurements made by the anchor WTRU, PRS measurements received from member WTRUs, at 860 i.e., transmit to a network entity based on the proximity of the second UE to the first UE being within a threshold amount.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Da with the method of Gunnarsson and further with the method of Rao so as to improve positioning accuracy, reduce high overhead and power inefficiency (See Rao Para 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Da teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: identify a plurality of candidate UEs within an acceptable proximity of the first UE; and select, to serve as a position information donor, the second UE from the plurality of candidate UEs based on the second UE being closest, of the plurality of candidate UEs, to the first UE (Para 126).
Regarding Claim 10, Da teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: measure a PRS resource to determine a second PRS measurement; and transmit, via the transceiver to the network entity, second position information based on the second PRS measurement (Para 132).
Regarding Claim 11, Da teaches wherein the processor is further configured to transmit the first position information to the network entity with a group indication indicative of a group including the first UE and the second UE (Para 132).
Regarding Claim 12, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 21, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 10.
Regarding Claim 22, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 11.
Regarding Claim 37, Da teaches wherein to communicate with the second UE as to a first PRS measurement, the processor is configured to provide, to the second UE, at least one quality of service criterion (Para 115 and 116).
Regarding Claim 38, Da teaches wherein communicating with the second UE as to a first PRS measurement includes providing, from the first UE to the second UE, at least one quality of service criterion (Para 117 and 126).
Claim(s) 3-4, 6-8, 14-15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da et al. Pub. No. US 20200408871 A1 in view of Gunnarsson et al. Pub. No. US 20200344713 A1 and further in view of Rao et al. Pub. No. US 20250088883 A1 and further in view of Venkatraman et al. Pub. No. US 20160066147 A1
Regarding Claim 3, Da does not specifically teach wherein the processor is further configured to: identify a plurality of candidate UEs within an acceptable proximity of the first UE; and select, to serve as a position information donor, the second UE from the plurality of candidate UEs based on processing capabilities of the plurality of candidate UEs.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Venkatraman teaches from Fig. 1 and 2 plurality of mobile device 104-n in an environment 100 within which an object 102 may enter, leave, and/or otherwise move or be moved about. A first mobile device 104-1 may be provided and identified as being initially co-located with a first point 106-1 of object 102. Similarly, as shown, a second mobile device 104-2 may be provided and identified as being initially co-located with a second point 106-2 of object 102. Second mobile device 104-2 may transmit one or more wireless signals to first mobile device 104-1 i.e., identify a plurality of candidate UEs within an acceptable proximity of the first UE; and select, to serve as a position information donor, the second UE from the plurality of candidate UEs based on processing capabilities of the plurality of candidate UEs (Para 34, 35).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Da with the method of Venkatraman so that mobile device that may be co-located with an object may be able to indicate, a reasonable position and/or like information regarding the movement or position of the object (See Venkatraman Para 4).
Regarding Claim 4, Da does not specifically teach wherein the processor is further configured to: identify a plurality of candidate UEs within an acceptable proximity of the first UE; and select, to serve as a position information donor, the second UE from the plurality of candidate UEs based on overlaps of a first PRS configuration associated with the first UE and second PRS configurations each associated with a respective one of the plurality of candidate UEs.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Venkatraman teaches from Fig. 5B Step 514 at least one of the subset of signal acquisition tasks may be selected based, at least in part, on a type of wireless positioning signal to be acquired by the second mobile device i.e., identify a plurality of candidate UEs within an acceptable proximity of the first UE; and select, to serve as a position information donor, the second UE from the plurality of candidate UEs based on overlaps of a first PRS configuration associated with the first UE and second PRS configurations each associated with a respective one of the plurality of candidate UEs (Para 84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Da with the method of Venkatraman so that mobile device that may be co-located with an object may be able to indicate, a reasonable position and/or like information regarding the movement or position of the object (See Venkatraman Para 4).
Regarding Claim 6, Da does not specifically teach wherein the processor is further configured to transmit a request to the second UE for the second UE to transmit the first position information with a requested periodicity of one of periodically, semi-persistently, or a periodically.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Venkatraman teaches from Fig. 5B Step 518 a request to a second mobile device may be further indicative of a task schedule corresponding to at least one of the subset of signal acquisition tasks to be performed by the second mobile device. Here, for example, a task schedule may indicate one or more times, or periods of time, in which signal acquisition for one or more signal acquisition tasks may be preferably performed (Para 86).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Da with the method of Venkatraman so that mobile device that may be co-located with an object may be able to indicate, a reasonable position and/or like information regarding the movement or position of the object (See Venkatraman Para 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Da does not specifically teach wherein the requested periodicity is based on a reporting periodicity of the first UE for the first position information.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Venkatraman teaches from Fig. 5B Step 518 a request to a second mobile device may be further indicative of a task schedule corresponding to at least one of the subset of signal acquisition tasks to be performed by the second mobile device. Here, for example, a task schedule may indicate one or more times, or periods of time, in which signal acquisition for one or more signal acquisition tasks may be preferably performed (Para 86).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Da with the method of Venkatraman so that mobile device that may be co-located with an object may be able to indicate, a reasonable position and/or like information regarding the movement or position of the object (See Venkatraman Para 4).
Regarding Claim 8, Da does not specifically teach wherein the processor is further configured to indicate to the second UE, for the first PRS measurement, a transmission/reception point (TRP), or the TRP and a PRS resource set, or the TRP and the PRS resource set and a PRS resource, or a UE-ID (UE identity), or the UE-ID and a sidelink-PRS resource related ID.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Venkatraman teaches the subset of signal acquisition tasks may be selected based, at least in part, on a type of wireless positioning signal to be acquired by the second mobile device i.e., configured to indicate to the second UE, for the first PRS measurement, a transmission/reception point (TRP), or the TRP and a PRS resource set, or the TRP and the PRS resource set and a PRS resource, or a UE-ID (UE identity), or the UE-ID and a sidelink-PRS resource related ID (Para 84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Da with the method of Venkatraman so that mobile device that may be co-located with an object may be able to indicate, a reasonable position and/or like information regarding the movement or position of the object (See Venkatraman Para 4).
Regarding Claim 14, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 15, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 17, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 18, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Regarding Claim 19, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da et al. Pub. No. US 20200408871 A1 in view of Gunnarsson et al. Pub. No. US 20200344713 A1 and further in view of Rao et al. Pub. No. US 20250088883 A1 and further in view of Siomina Pub. No. US 20160278040 A1
Regarding Claim 9, Da does not specifically teach wherein the processor is further configured to validate the first PRS measurement indicated in the first position information by comparing the first PRS measurement with a similar measurement made by a device other than the second UE.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Siomina teaches from Fig. 6A that the second node is further configured to determine 22 if a radio measurement associated with the wireless device is available i.e., first information. The processing circuitry 320 is configured to determine if the radio measurement associated with the wireless device is available. the determining 22 further comprises determining 23 if the radio measurement associated with the wireless device is available with respect to a second positioning quality target. The second position quality comprises at least one of an allowable amount of time elapsed since the radio measurement was taken, an allowable level of received signal strength and/or an allowable level of received signal quality i.e., validate the first PRS measurement indicated in the first position information by comparing the first PRS measurement with a similar measurement made by a device other than the second UE. The processing circuitry 320 is configured to determine 22 if the radio measurement associated with the wireless device is available with respect to a second positioning quality target (Para 229-230).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Da with the method of Siomina so that the measurements of certain quality are then used for UE location calculation thus providing an available radio measurement associated with the wireless device (See Siomina Para 20 and abstract).
Regarding Claim 20, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 and 20 in combination of claim 3, 14 or 4, 15 are 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.
The following claim 1 drafted by the examiner and considered to distinguish patentably over the art of record in this application, is presented to applicant for consideration:
A first UE (user equipment) comprising:
a transceiver;
a memory; and
a processor, communicatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory, configured to:
communicate, using at least one first wireless signal via the transceiver in accordance with a first radio access technology, with a second UE to at least one of instruct the second UE, or agree with the second UE, as to a first PRS measurement (positioning reference signal measurement) to be made by the second UE;
receive, via the transceiver from the second UE via sidelink communication, at least one second wireless signal including first position information based on the first PRS measurement;
determine a proximity of the second UE to the first UE; and
transmit to a network entity, using at least one third wireless signal via the transceiver in accordance with a second radio access technology, the first position information based on the proximity of the second UE to the first UE being within a threshold amount;
wherein the processor is further configured to: identify a plurality of candidate UEs within an acceptable proximity of the first UE; and select, to serve as a position information donor, the second UE from the plurality of candidate UEs based on overlaps of a first PRS configuration associated with the first UE and second PRS configurations each associated with a respective one of the plurality of candidate UEs; or based on processing capabilities of the plurality of candidate UEs; and
wherein the processor is further configured to validate the first PRS measurement indicated in the first position information by comparing the first PRS measurement with a similar measurement made by a device other than the second UE.
These limitation in combination of other elements are neither found nor disclosed in prior art as a whole.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-12, 14-22, 37-38 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIZAR N SIVJI whose telephone number is (571)270-7462. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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.
NIZAR N. SIVJI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/NIZAR N SIVJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights