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 .
2. This communication is in response to the Application No. 18/547,974 filed on 8/25/23. Claims 1 – 92 has been examined.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 6, after transceiver has two “ , ,”. Appropriate correction is required for that typographical error.
Claim Interpretation
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
5. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
6. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding claim 69, means for receiving, is interpreted as transceiver, means for performing is interpreted as processor.
Regarding claim 75, means for determining location assistance data, is interpreted as transceiver, means for transmitting is interpreted as transceiver.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1 – 5, 8, 14 – 22, 25, 31 – 39, 42, 48 – 56, 59, 65 – 77, 79, 81 – 83, 85 – 89, 91 - 92 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stare et al. (US 2022/0014877, Stare hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, Stare teaching A method of operating a user equipment (UE) (measurement unit, 34 of Fig. 1), comprising:
receiving, from a network component (mirror configuration unit, 32 of Fig. 1), location assistance data (assistance data, paragraph 119, 125, 133) comprising information associated with one or more reconfigurable intelligent surfaces (RISs) (16b and 23 of Fig. 1; Each network node 16a, 16b, 16c is connectable to the core network 14 over a wired or wireless connection 20. A first wireless device (WD) 22a located in coverage area 18a is configured to wirelessly connect to, or be paged by, the corresponding network node 16a. A second WD 22b in coverage area 18b is wirelessly connectable to the corresponding network node 16b. While a plurality of WDs 22a, 22b (collectively referred to as wireless devices 22) are illustrated in this example, the disclosed embodiments are equally applicable to a situation where a sole WD is in the coverage area or where a sole WD is connecting to the corresponding network node 16. Access network 12 may also contain one or more mirrors 23. Note that although only two WDs 22, two mirrors 23 and three network nodes 16 are shown for convenience, the communication system may include many more WDs 22, mirrors 23 and network nodes 16; paragraph 87, 91 105); and
performing one or more location procedures based on the location assistance data (Fig. 12, block S236; The method includes the WD 22 using the DL measurement(s) for one or operational tasks, such as, for example, the WD 22 positioning or sending a measurement report to another node or updating a radio measurement pattern/map (Block S236). In some embodiments, the using the DL measurement(s) may include position calculation, reporting, updating and/or maintaining radio measurements patterns/maps, etc, paragraph 135).
Regarding claim 2, Stare teaches The method of claim 1, Stare further teaches wherein the information comprises a notification of the presence of the one or more RISs in an area (In some embodiments, the at least one mirror configuration includes a cell identifier associating the at least one mirror configuration to a cell, paragraph 120; The example method includes a network node 16 indicating the existence of a set of mirrors 23 in the network deployment to the WD 22 (Block S200). The network node 16 may then send a downlink (DL) reference signal to the WD 22 and indicate that the DL reference signals are to be mirrored by at least one of the set of mirrors 23 (Block S202), paragraph 131).
Regarding claim 3, Stare teaches The method of claim 2,
Stare further teaches wherein the area corresponds to a cell (A cell may be generally a communication cell, e.g., of a cellular or mobile communication network, provided by a node. A serving cell may be a cell on or via which a network node (the node providing or associated to the cell, e.g., base station or eNodeB) transmits and/or may transmit data (which may be data other than broadcast data) to a WD, paragraph 83, 87), or
wherein the area is based on a position estimate of the UE, or
a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 4, Stare teaches The method of claim 2,
Stare further teaches The method of wherein the one or more RISs include multiple RISs (Access network 12 may also contain one or more mirrors 23. Note that although only two WDs 22, two mirrors 23 and three network nodes 16 are shown for convenience, the communication system may include many more WDs 22, mirrors 23 and network nodes 16, paragraph 87), and
wherein the information comprises a respective RIS identifier for each of the multiple RISs (One example of an identifier is a physical cell ID as above, but can also be abeam ID, reference signal (RS) ID, positioning reference signal ID, etc., which is unique as known in the art, paragraph 176).
Regarding claim 5, Stare teaches The method of claim 1,
Stare further teaches The method of wherein the one or more location procedures are associated with UE-based position estimation of the UE (In some embodiments, the method further includes estimating, such as via mirror configuration unit 32, processing circuitry 68, processor 70 and/or radio interface 62, a position of the WD 22 based at least in part on the received measurement report, paragraph 121), and
wherein the information comprises a respective location associated with each of the one or more RISs (In some embodiments, the at least one mirror configuration includes a location of each of the at least one mirror 23. In some embodiments, the at least one mirror configuration includes a request for a measurement associated with the at least one mirror configuration, paragraph 120).
Regarding claim 8, Stare teaches The method of claim 1, Stare further teaches wherein the one or more location procedures are associated with at least one reference signal for positioning (RS-P) communicated between the UE and a wireless node via reflection off of the one or more RISs (communicate at least one reference signal to the WD 22, the at least one reference signal to be reflected by the indicated at least one mirror 23 for positioning the wireless device 22; and optionally, receive a measurement report, the measurement report based at least in part on the reflected at least one reference signal, paragraph 90).
Regarding claim 14, Stare teaches The method of claim 8, Stare further teaches wherein the information comprises an association between the at least one RS-P and the one or more RISs (communicate at least one reference signal to the WD 22, the at least one reference signal to be reflected by the indicated at least one mirror 23 for positioning the wireless device 22; and optionally, receive a measurement report, the measurement report based at least in part on the reflected at least one reference signal, paragraph 90).
Regarding claim 15, Stare teaches The method of claim 1, Stare further teaches wherein the one or more one or more location procedures comprises a downlink angle of departure (DL-AoD) positioning session of the UE (The same or different mirrors 23 could be used for DL and UL, which may be controlled e.g., by scheduling and/or a configuration of transmission directions. At the network node 16, it may be possible to compute the time of arrival of the reference signals from the WD 22 and the respective reflections of the signal(s) from other corresponding mirrors. Aside from timing information, the angle of arrival (AoA), angle of departure (AoD), and other similar reflection information determined at the network node 16 can be used together with the placement of the mirrors/reflectors/virtual transmission points to estimate the WD's 22 position, paragraph 163).
Regarding claim 16, Stare teaches The method of claim 15, Stare further teaches wherein the information comprises beam information of each positioning reference signal (PRS) for the one or more RISs (beam ID, paragraph 180).
Regarding claim 17, Stare teaches The method of claim 16, Stare further teaches wherein the beam information includes:
a PRS identifier and associated RIS identifier, or
RIS orientation, or
an Azimuth and elevation of the respective PRS beam, or
a beam width of the respective PRS beam (In some embodiments (e.g., assuming flat mirrors) the beam widths of the reflected signals at a WD 22 will correspond to the distance to the virtual Transmission Point and not the distance of the WD 22 to a particular mirror, since the network node 16 beam may have already expanded while reaching the mirrors, paragraph 157), or
a boresight direction or beamwidth uncertainty, or
a power level of one or more side lobes or a back lobe with respect to boresight, or
a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 18, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 1, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 19, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 2, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 20, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 3, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 21, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 4, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 22, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 5, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 25, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 8, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 31, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 14, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 32, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 15, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 33, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 16, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 34, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 17, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 35, A user equipment (UE), comprising:
a memory (memory 46, paragraph 96);
at least one transceiver (transceiver, paragraph 98);
at least one processor (processing circuitry 42, paragraph 96) communicatively coupled to the memory and the at least one transceiver, the at least one processor configured to (Processing circuitry 42 may be configured to control any of the methods and/or processes described herein and/or to cause such methods, and/or processes to be performed, e.g., by host computer 24. Processor 44 corresponds to one or more processors 44 for performing host computer 24 functions described herein. The host computer 24 includes memory 46 that is configured to store data, programmatic software code and/or other information described herein, paragraph 96);
receive, via at least one transceiver, from a network component (mirror configuration unit, 32 of Fig. 1), location assistance data (assistance data, paragraph 119, 125, 133) comprising information associated with one or more reconfigurable intelligent surfaces (RISs) (16b and 23 of Fig. 1; Each network node 16a, 16b, 16c is connectable to the core network 14 over a wired or wireless connection 20. A first wireless device (WD) 22a located in coverage area 18a is configured to wirelessly connect to, or be paged by, the corresponding network node 16a. A second WD 22b in coverage area 18b is wirelessly connectable to the corresponding network node 16b. While a plurality of WDs 22a, 22b (collectively referred to as wireless devices 22) are illustrated in this example, the disclosed embodiments are equally applicable to a situation where a sole WD is in the coverage area or where a sole WD is connecting to the corresponding network node 16. Access network 12 may also contain one or more mirrors 23. Note that although only two WDs 22, two mirrors 23 and three network nodes 16 are shown for convenience, the communication system may include many more WDs 22, mirrors 23 and network nodes 16; paragraph 87, 91 105); and
perform one or more location procedures based on the location assistance data (Fig. 12, block S236; The method includes the WD 22 using the DL measurement(s) for one or operational tasks, such as, for example, the WD 22 positioning or sending a measurement report to another node or updating a radio measurement pattern/map (Block S236). In some embodiments, the using the DL measurement(s) may include position calculation, reporting, updating and/or maintaining radio measurements patterns/maps, etc, paragraph 135).
Regarding claim 36, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 2, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 37, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 3, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 38, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 4, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 39, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 5, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 42, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 8, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 48, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 14, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 49, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 15, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 50, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 16, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 51, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 17, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 52, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 35, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 53, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 36, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 54, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 37, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 55, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 38, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 56, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 39, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 59, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 42, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 65, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 48, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 66, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 49, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 67, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 50, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 68, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 51, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 69, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 1, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 70, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 2, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 71, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 3, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 72, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 4, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 73, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 8, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 74, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 15, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 75, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 1, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 76, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 2, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 77, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 3, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 79, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 8, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 81, the non-transitory computer-readable medium substantially has same limitations as claim 1, thus the same rejection is applicable (Accordingly, the concepts described herein may take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment or an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects all generally referred to herein as a “circuit” or “module.” Any process, step, action and/or functionality described herein may be performed by, and/or associated to, a corresponding module, which may be implemented in software and/or firmware and/or hardware. Furthermore, the disclosure may take the form of a computer program product on a tangible computer usable storage medium having computer program code embodied in the medium that can be executed by a computer. Any suitable tangible computer readable medium may be utilized including hard disks, CD-ROMs, electronic storage devices, optical storage devices, or magnetic storage devices, paragraph 216).
Regarding claim 82, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 2, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 83, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 5, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 85, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 8, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 86, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 6, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 87, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 1, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 88, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 2, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 89, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 5, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 91, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 8, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 92, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 15, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claim(s) 6 – 7, 23 – 24, 40 – 41, 57 – 58, 72, 78, 84, 90 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stare et al. (US 2022/0014877, Stare hereafter) in further view of MEDRA et al. (US 2022/0052764, Medra hereafter).
Regarding claim 6, Stare teaches claim 1, however, does not specifically disclose wherein, for each of the one or more RISs, the information comprises an indication of whether the respective RIS is a passive RIS or a relay RIS even tough it is known in the art that it is known as passive or relay RIS.
Medra teaches wherein, for each of the one or more RISs, the information comprises an indication of whether the respective RIS is a passive RIS or a relay RIS (A Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface (RIS), also known as large intelligent surface (LIS), smart reflect-array, intelligent passive mirrors, artificial radio space, reconfigurable metasurface, holographic multiple input multiple output (MIMO) is an array of configurable elements, paragraph 54).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Medra’s relay or passive RIS with the system of Stare. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because in doing so it can provide or select proper reflective surface based on the requirements.
Regarding claim 7, Stare with Medra teaches The method of claim 6,
Madera further teaches wherein The method of wherein at least one of the one or more RISs is indicated as a relay RIS (A Reconfigurable Intelligent Surface (RIS), also known as large intelligent surface (LIS), smart reflect-array, intelligent passive mirrors, artificial radio space, reconfigurable metasurface, holographic multiple input multiple output (MIMO) is an array of configurable elements, paragraph 54), and
wherein the information further includes, with respect to the at least one RIS, an indication of a gain of RTS reflection, a group delay, or a combination thereof (A basic example for RIS utilization in beamforming is shown in FIG. 1 where each RIS configurable element (unit cell) can change the phase of the incident wave from source such that the reflected waves from all of the RIS elements are aligned to the direction of the destination to increase or maximize its received signal strength (e.g. maximize the SNR). Such a reflection via the RIS may be referred to as reflect-array beamforming, paragraph 56).
Regarding claim 23, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 6, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 24, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 7, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 40, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 6, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 41, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 7, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 57, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 40, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 58, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 41, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 72, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 6, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 78, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 6, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 84, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 6, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 90, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 6, thus the same rejection is applicable.
14. Claim(s) 9, 12 – 13, 26, 29 – 30, 43, 46 – 47, 60, 63 – 64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stare et al. (US 2022/0014877, Stare hereafter) in further view of HAIJA et al. (US 2022/0014935, Haija hereafter).
Regarding claim 9, Stare teaches The method of claim 8,
However does not specifically teach The method of wherein the at least one RS-P comprises at least one uplink or sidelink sounding reference signal for positioning (SRS-P) transmitted by the UE, or
wherein the at least one RS-P comprises at least one downlink or sidelink positioning reference signal (PRS) transmitted by the wireless node, or
a combination thereof.
Haija teaches However does not specifically teach The method of wherein the at least one RS-P comprises at least one uplink or sidelink sounding reference signal for positioning (SRS-P) transmitted by the UE (the preceding example describing downlink (DL) transmission can be adapted to uplink (UL) transmission as follows. In UL, the AoD from the RIS to the base station is known given the RIS and base station locations and they are both connected to a network. The base station can configure the UE via RRC signaling to transmit different sounding reference signals (SRSs) of different frequencies on each beam or via multiple beams, paragraph 110), or
wherein the at least one RS-P comprises at least one downlink or sidelink positioning reference signal (PRS) transmitted by the wireless node, or
a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Haija’s sounding reference signal with the system of Stare. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because SRS allows the gNB to estimate uplink channel conditions across frequency, time, and spatial domains, enabling real-time adjustments for optimal scheduling and resource allocation.
Regarding claim 12, Stare with Haija The method of claim 9,
Stare further teaches wherein the at least one RS-P comprises the at least one PRS transmitted by the wireless node, wherein the information comprises one or more PRS search window parameters (Accordingly, at least some embodiments in this disclosure may dynamically increase the diversity of received reference signals, e.g., positioning reference signals (PRSs) on cells that may result in measurements, for example reference signal time difference (RSTD) measurements, that can contribute significantly to improved position accuracy as compared with known positioning solutions. Some embodiments may minimize downlink (and/or uplink) waste-to-accuracy ratio, paragraph 186).
Regarding claim 13, Stare with Haija teaches The method of claim 12,
Stare further teaches wherein the one or more PRS search window parameters comprise an expected reference signal time differential (RSTD) or an expected RSTD uncertainty associated with arrival of the at least one downlink or sidelink PRS at the UE (e.g., positioning reference signals (PRSs) on cells that may result in measurements, for example reference signal time difference (RSTD) measurements, that can contribute significantly to improved position accuracy as compared with known positioning solutions. Some embodiments may minimize downlink (and/or uplink) waste-to-accuracy ratio, paragraph 186).
Regarding claim 26, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 9, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 29, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 12, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 30, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 13, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 43, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 9, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 46, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 12, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 47, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 13, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 60, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 43, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 63, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 46, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 64, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 13, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claims 10 – 11, 27 – 28, 44 – 45, 61 – 62 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.
Conclusion
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANMAY K SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri - 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/TANMAY K SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
TANMAY K. SHAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2632