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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Jung does not teach the time information indicating when to return response information. However, the claimed limitation is “time information configured to indicate to return response information” not “when to return response information.” Nowhere in the specification or drawings further explain what it meant by “to indicate to return response information.” Therefore, the time information can be read as the time to acquire response information that will be returned to the core network device.
In contrast to applicant’s assertions, Jung teaches in paragraph 246, 262, 264 and 290, the positioning duration time is a time for the UE to measure the position. Once the time is ended, the UE reports the measurement result back to the network. Which reads on the claimed “time information configured to indicate to return response information.”
Applicant further argues that Jung does not teach “a positioning method, performed by an access network device.”
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 8. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “performed by an access network device” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Applicant further argues that Jung discloses interactions between the UE and the network, rather than interactions between the core network device and the access network device.
In contrast to applicant’s assertions, for a network to send a message to a UE, the message is first sent to the eNB or access network device then to the UE. Therefore, the eNB would send the same message to the UE as the network indicated in Fig. 17 of Jung.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jung et al. (US 2015/0148063 A1).
Consider claim 1, Jung teaches a positioning method, performed by a core network device (abstract) and comprising:
sending a positioning message, wherein the positioning message comprises time information configured to indicate to return response information (Fig. 17, step S1710 and paragraph 277, the network sends measurement configuration/positioning configuration to the UE which includes positioning duration time information).
Consider claims 8 and 15, claims 8 and 15 having similar limitations as claim 1, therefore, claims 8 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons claim 1 is rejected.
Jung additionally teaches the MME performs location service procedure with the UE and LMU and SMLC in Fig. 14 and the descriptive text for Fig. 14.
Consider claim 2, Jung also teaches wherein sending the positioning message comprises: sending the positioning message to an access network device; or sending the positioning message to a terminal device (Fig. 17, step S1710 and paragraph 277, the positioning configuration is sent to the UE).
Consider claims 3, 9 and 16, Jung also teaches wherein the time information is any one of: a moment or a time duration (paragraph 277, a time duration).
Consider claims 4 and 12, Jung also teaches wherein the positioning message is one of: a terminal device capability request message; a positioning measurement result request message; a positioning information request message; or a positioning activation request message (paragraph 277, the positioning configuration triggers the UE to measure the report position).
Consider claim 5, Jung also teaches receiving a positioning request message, wherein the positioning request message comprises a predetermined position time; and determining the time information according to the predetermined position time (paragraph 277, a time duration is received for determine the position).
Consider claim 6, Jung also teaches wherein determining the time information according to the predetermined position time comprises: determining the time information according to the predetermined position time and a moment when the positioning request message is received (paragraph 277).
Consider claim 7, Jung also teaches, wherein determining the time information according to the predetermined position time comprises: determining the time information according to the predetermined position time and a type of the positioning message (paragraph 277).
Consider claims 10 and 17, Jung also teaches wherein the time information is the moment, and the method further comprises: returning the response information before the moment (paragraph 180, 257-259 and 262, the UE reports position measurement when in RRC connected state before a timer expires).
Consider claims 11 and 18, Jung also teaches, wherein the time information is the time duration, and the method comprises: in response to receiving the positioning message, starting a first timer; and returning the response information before a timing value of the first timer reaches the time duration (paragraph 180, 257-259 and 262).
Consider claim 13, Jung also teaches wherein the positioning message is the positioning information request message, and the method further comprises: within a time indicated by the time information, returning uplink positioning reference signal configuration information corresponding to a specified terminal device, wherein the specified terminal device is a terminal device indicated in the positioning information request message (paragraph 220-221, 226-227 and 231-233, the location of a specific UE can be requested and provided).
Consider claim 14, Jung also teaches wherein the positioning message is the positioning activation request message, and the method further comprises: within a time indicated by the time information, returning a positioning activation response message (paragraph 277).
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.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung and further in view of Edge (US 2018/0054796 A1).
Consider claim 19, Jung does not teach wherein the positioning message is a terminal device capability request message, and the method further comprises: within a time indicated by the time information, returning positioning capability information of the terminal device.
Edge further teaches wherein the positioning message is a terminal device capability request message, and the method further comprises: within a time indicated by the time information, returning positioning capability information of the terminal device (paragraph 121-123, the LPP request include a response time and positing request and the UE respond to the LPP request within the response time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and utilize the above teachings for the purposes of effectively obtaining the positioning information of the UE for better network management.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JUSTIN YE LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5258. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-8:00.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 5712705371. 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.
/JUSTIN Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644 2/26/26