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 .
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-17, 19-20, 23-29, 33-42, 44-45, 48-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2020/0252989 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 26, & 51-52, Chen discloses a method, a first user equipment, non-transitory computer-readable medium, of wireless communication performed by a first user equipment (UE), the method comprising:
a memory (see memory [0022]);
a communication interface (see interface [0041]); and
At least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory and the communication interface, the at least one processor (see processor [0136]) configured to:
participating in a sidelink (SL) positioning session with at least a second UE (see sidelink participating in fig. 5);
determining (see [0078] “determine whether”) that the SL positioning session should be terminated or suspended (see [0078]] “may suspend any sidelink”); and
terminating or suspending the SL positioning session (determining “whether” to restart means it was actually suspended, [0078]).
Regarding claims 2 & 27, Chen discloses the method of claim 1 and first UE of claim 26, wherein determining that the SL positioning session should be terminated or suspended comprises determining that the SL positioning session exceeds or will exceed a maximum SL positioning session duration (see [0091], “specified time duration is greater”).
Regarding claims 3 & 28, Chen discloses the method of claim 1 and first UE of claim 26, wherein determining that the SL positioning session should be terminated or suspended comprises determining that a requirement for the SL positioning session is not being met (see “may stop transmitting sidelink reference signals once RLF is declared”, [0078]).
Regarding claims 4 & 29, Chen discloses the method of claim 3 and first UE of claim 28, wherein determining that the SL positioning session should be terminated or suspended comprises determining that the requirement for the SL positioning session is not being met and has not been met for a threshold amount of time (see [0092], “channel quality indicator is below a certain channel quality indicator threshold for at least a certain time duration”).
Regarding claims 8 & 33, Chen discloses the method of claim 3 and first UE of claim 28, wherein determining that the requirement for the SL positioning session is not being met comprises determining that a condition of a channel being used for the SL positioning session does not meet a channel quality requirement (see [0154], “ certain channel condition thresholds”).
Regarding claims 9 & 34, Chen discloses the method of claim 3 and first UE of claim 28, wherein determining that the requirement for the SL positioning session is not being met comprises determining that the first UE or the second UE does not meet a minimum power requirement (see [0101], “the L-UE 402 can facilitate the support for SL power control in all M-UEs 406 to ensure short range SL transmissions in a small coverage area and high SL-SINR”).
Regarding claims 10 & 35, Chen discloses the method of claim 1 and first UE of claim 26, wherein determining that the requirement for the SL positioning session is not being met comprises determining that a processing time (see [0088], “with specific geo-area and time duration/periodicity restrictions”), a measurement response time, a measurement period time, or a measurement time of the first UE or the second UE does not meet a response time requirement.
Regarding claims 11 & 36, Chen discloses the method of claim 3 and first UE of claim 28, wherein determining that the requirement for the SL positioning session is not being met comprises determining that the first UE or the second UE does not meet a quality of service (QoS) requirement (see QOS requirments, [0077]).
Regarding claims 12 & 37, Chen discloses the method of claim 3 and first UE of claim 28, wherein the requirement for the SL positioning session was explicitly specified during setup of the SL positioning session (see pre-configured [0071]).
Regarding claims 13 & 38, Chen discloses the method of claim 3 and first UE of claim 28, wherein the requirement for the SL positioning session was implicitly determined (see [0133], “the interference mitigation and congestion control are handled by RAN for both L-UE 402 and M-UE(s) 406 as part of the resource allocation procedure, with the awareness of UE group context (i.e. sent in Group Assistance Information in RRC) which may include attributes such as the location/position of UE in the UE group and transmission timing.” Therefore,indirect or implict).
Regarding claims 14 & 39, Chen discloses the method of claim 1 and first UE of claim 26, wherein terminating or suspending the SL positioning session comprises terminating or suspending the SL positioning session via communication over a SL channel, via communication over a channel other than the SL channel (see [0078], “ suspend any sidelink data radio bearers (DRBs) and any sidelink signaling radio bearers (SRBs), possibly excepting (e.g., at least for a certain duration) a sidelink SRB(1)”), or combinations thereof.
Regarding claims 15 & 40, Chen discloses the method of claim 1 and first UE of claim 26, wherein terminating or suspending the SL positioning session comprises terminating or suspending the SL positioning session via a multicast message, a groupcast message, a broadcast message, or a unicast message (see unicast, [0078]).
Regarding claims 16 & 41 , Chen discloses the method of claim 1 and first UE of claim 26, wherein terminating or suspending the SL positioning session comprises terminating the SL positioning session (see stop transmitting sidelink, [0078]).
Regarding claims 17 & 42, Chen discloses the method of claim 1 and first UE of claim 26, Chen does not specifically disclose however Maaref discloses wherein terminating the SL positioning session comprises sending, to at least the second UE, a message indicating that the SL positioning session is immediately terminated (see, “In 908, the second UE 904 may provide sidelink failure information indicating the sidelink RLC failure to the first UE 902”; fig. 9);
Regarding claims 19 & 44, Chen discloses the method of claim 1 and first UE of claim 26, wherein terminating or suspending the SL positioning session comprises suspending the SL positioning session (SL is suspended-stopped therefore SL positioning stopped, [0078]).
Regarding claims 20 & 45, Chen discloses the method of claim 19 and first UE of claim 44, wherein terminating the SL positioning session comprises sending, to at least the second UE, a message indicating that the SL positioning session is immediately suspended (see, “In 908, the second UE 904 may provide sidelink failure information indicating the sidelink RLC failure to the first UE 902”; fig. 9).
Regarding claims 23 & 48, Chen discloses the method of claim 19 and first UE of claim 44, further comprising reactivating the SL positioning session (see [0075], “re-establishment”).
Regarding claims 24 & 49, Chen discloses the method of claim 1 and first UE of claim 26, wherein reactivating the SL positioning session comprises sending, to at least the second UE, a message requesting reactivation of the SL positioning session (see [0080], “UE 804 may transmit a sidelink RRC re-establishment request ”).
Regarding claims 25 & 50, Chen discloses the method of claim 1 and first UE of claim 26, wherein terminating or suspending the SL positioning session comprises sending a status update to at least the second UE and receiving (see [0116], “status updates for the unicast sidelink wireless connection with the second wireless device”), from at least the second UE, an instruction to terminate or suspend the SL positioning session (see stop, [0108]).
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) 5 & 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Rao et al. (US 2021/0045093 A1).
Regarding claims 5 & 30, Chen discloses the method of claim 3 and first UE of claim 28, Chen does not explicitly disclose however Rao discloses wherein determining that the requirement for the SL positioning session is not being met comprises determining that a location estimate of the first UE or the second UE does not meet a location certainty requirement (see validity location, [0012]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Rao with that of Chen. Doing so would conform to well-known techniques in the field of invention.
Claim(s) 6-7 & 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view Ouchi et al. (US 2019/0229964 A1).
Regarding claims 6 & 31, Chen discloses the method of claim 3 and first UE of claim 28, wherein determining that the requirement for the SL positioning session is not being met comprises determining that a velocity of the first UE or the second UE exceeds a maximum velocity requirement (see speed exceeds threshold [00432]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Ouchi with that of Chen. Doing so would conform to well-known techniques in the field of invention.
Regarding claims 7 & 32, Chen discloses the method of claim 3 and first UE of claim 28, wherein the method of claim 3, wherein determining that the requirement for the SL positioning session is not being met comprises determining that a mobility state of first UE or the second UE exceeds a mobility threshold requirement;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Ouchi with that of Chen. Doing so would conform to well-known techniques in the field of invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18, 21-22, 43, 46-47 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K. WILFORD SHAHEED whose telephone number is (469) 295-9175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 am-6pm; CST; ALT Friday. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The examiner’s Supervisor, Jinsong Hu, can be reached at (571)272-3965, where attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful.
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.
/KHALID W SHAHEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643