DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Office action in response to amendment entered on 5/26/2026. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, and 12-14 are amended, Claims 3, 7, 11, and 15 canceled, Claims 16-23 are added, and thus Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, and 16-23 are now pending and rejected in this final office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, and 16-23 as filed 5/26/2026 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.
Applicants remarks regarding the claim features being recited as non-functional descriptive matter are fully considered but not persuasive.
Applicant remarks (Remarks pg. 18-19) allege various points that the matter is not merely descriptive. However, for each of applicants points there is a single simple answer: Those funcitonal features that applicant alleges are not recited in the claim and are thus
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). So, for example contrary to what applicant asserts, “The 10 ms unit granularity governs the encoding and format of the response time field within the LPP Request Location Information message.” Or that “the UE must initiate, execute, and complete location estimation and reporting within the deadline expressed with 10 ms precision.” Or that “the "response time set using 10 ms units" is functionally linked to the "response time related capability information" in the LPP Provide Capabilities message” are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Also examiner notes that the remarks appear to be written via generative AI. Such use is not against any office policies that examiner knows of, but examiner recommends that a qualified attorney review such remarks in order to avoid unnecessarily drawn out patent prosecution.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claims have priority to foreign filing date 05/10/2021.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant has expressly admitted on the record that Group I. Claims 1-4 and 9-12 and Group II. Claims 5-8 and 13-15 (as filed) are obvious variants. See reply filed 1/28/2026 page 3 ( e.g. “Office Action further asserts that Group I and Group II are not obvious variants of each other. This is incorrect.” And “The claimed UE-side and network-side methods are merely mirror images of a single communication protocol.”).
Thus the rejection of Group I. Claims 1-4 and 9-12 (UE) also applies to Group II. Claims 5-8 and 13-15 (network entity) since they are expressly admitted to be obvious variants.
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) 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10433275 B2 Edge; Stephen William et al. in view of US 20240007986 A1 BARBU; Oana-Elena et al.
Claims 1 and 9
Edge teaches A user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (Fig. 4 UE 105 system as shown in Figs. 1 and 4), the UE comprising:
a transceiver; and at least one processor coupled to the transceiver, wherein the at least one processor (UE of Fig. 11 with transceiver and processing Units, and accompanying text) is configured to:
receive, from a location management function (LMF) (Fig. 4, AMF 115 and LMF 120), a long-term evolution (LTE) positioning protocol (LPP) request capabilities message requesting capability information associated with one or more location estimation methods(See Fig. 4 402—403 and Col. 14 ¶2 “, the LMF 120 can send an LPP Request Capabilities message to the AMF 115 serving the UE 105 (e.g. using 5G LCS AP), at action 402. . . AMF 115 may include the LPP Request Capabilities message within a 5G NAS transport message, which is sent to the UE 105 at action 403. . .”; See generally Fig. 4, Col. 14-Col.15), and
transmit, to the LMF, an LPP provide capabilities message including capability information associated with a location estimation method supported by the UE among the one or more location estimation methods (See Fig. 4 404—405 where UE responds with capability for each of one or more estimation methods as seen Col. 14 ¶3 “indicate the positioning capabilities of the UE 105 (e.g., position methods supported by the UE 105 such as A-GNSS positioning, RTK positioning, OTDOA positioning, ECID positioning, WLAN positioning, etc.)”),and
receive, from the LMF, an LPP request location information message requesting location information (Edge Fig. 4, Col. 15 ¶2 “This may be followed by an LPP Request Location Information message, again sent from the LMF 120 to AMF 115, at action 416, which is relayed to the UE 105 in a 5G NAS transport message by AMF 115, and via gNB 110-1, at action 417. The LPP Request Location Information message may request one or more location measurements from UE 105 and/or a location estimate according to the position capabilities of UE 105 sent to LMF 120 at actions 404 and 405”),
wherein the capability information associated with the location estimation method includes response time related capability information, and (Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) “response time related” taught because claim does not limit the function or form of what constitutes “related” of said “response time” See Edge Fig. 4 404—405, Col. 14 ¶3 “indicate the positioning capabilities of the UE 105 (e.g., position methods supported by the UE 105 such as A-GNSS positioning, RTK positioning, OTDOA positioning, ECID positioning, WLAN positioning, etc.)”).
Regarding the last limitation, Examiner notes that “wherein the LPP request location information message comprises a response time being set to by using 10 millisecond units” recited merely as printed matter or nonfunctional descriptive material where the content of LPP request location message does not cause an effect or functional transformation in the product and/or merely produces a predictable result that does not distinguish from the prior art (See MPEP 2115.05 Functional and Nonfunctional Descriptive Material and MPEP 2112.01 Nonfunctional printed matter does not distinguish claimed product from otherwise identical prior art product), and thus Edge’s teaching of location information message supra is sufficient to anticipate the claim limitation.
However, for the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner also notes analogous art Barbu that teaches wherein the LPP request location information message (Barbu Fig. 3 S305 assistance data Fig. 4 S310 Fig. 4 S405 assistance data S420 positioning request from LMF to UE; , comprises a response time being set to by using 10 millisecond units (Fig. 3 Fig. 4 S305 S405 assistance data implied to include performance target information ¶43-¶45 “Examples of positioning performance target information include, but are not limited to: . . .(ii) target latency measured as the elapsed time from the location request to the obtaining of the location coordinates (e.g., desired or, alternatively, required latency values such as less than 100 milliseconds (ms), or less than 10 milliseconds (ms)).” – because UE’s knowledge of target information implied by Fig. 3 step 315 ¶70 “the UE 110 determines that the MGs have not been configured, or the UE 110 determines that the MGs have been configured, but the MGs are not sufficient to perform the IF measurements, the UE 110 proceeds to step S320”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Edge to include the noted teachings of BARBU in order that the overhead and amount of time associated with the process of reconfiguring the UE with the MG may be reduced (Bargu ¶50-52).
Claims 2 and 10.
The recited response time related capability information merely as printed matter or nonfunctional descriptive material where the content of response time related capability information e does not cause an effect or functional transformation in the product and/or merely produces a predictable result that does not distinguish from the prior art (See MPEP 2115.05 Functional and Nonfunctional Descriptive Material and MPEP 2112.01 Nonfunctional printed matter does not distinguish claimed product from otherwise identical prior art product).
The combination teaches The UE of claim 1, wherein: the response time related capability information is associated with indicating whether the UE supports 10 millisecond unit response time (See Edge supra claim 1 in view of the non-functional descriptive matter nature of the claimed limitation)
Claim 4.
The combination teaches The UE of claim 1 (supra), wherein the location estimation method comprises at least one of: a new radio enhanced cell identity (NR ECID) location estimation method; a new radio downlink time difference of arrival (NR DL-TDOA) location estimation method; a new radio downlink angle of departure (NR DL-AoD) location estimation method; or a new radio multi round-trip time positioning (NR multi-RTT) location estimation method (Edge Col. 13 ¶2 “It can be noted that use of the existing LPP protocol for positioning of UE 105 with access to NG-RAN 135 as described and illustrated previously with reference to FIGS. 1-3 could be adapted or replaced by new or modified protocols for NG-RAN 135 (or another RAN, if utilized). In some embodiments, adaptations might include an extension of LPP or a replacement of LPP which may be needed to support position methods in which UE 105 obtains measurements of NR signals transmitted by one or more gNBs 110. Such NR related measurements could include measurements of RSRP, RSRQ, RSTD, round trip signal propagation time (RTT) and/or angle of arrival (AOA). In one embodiment, referred to as Alternative A1, LPP may be extended to support new NR RAT-dependent (and possible other RAT-independent) position methods such as NR RAT-dependent position methods similar to OTDOA or ECID for LTE access..”).
Claim 16 and 20
The combination teaches transmit, to the LMF, an LPP provide location information message including the location information (Edge Fig. 4 418 419 Col. 15L55-68 “UE 105 may also obtain a location estimate at block 418 based on the location measurements and possibly based also on some or all of the assistance data received at action 415. The location measurements or the location estimate may be provided in an LPP Provide Location message”)
Claim 17 and 21
The combination teaches wherein the location information includes location measurement data or a location estimate (Edge Fig. 4 418 419 Col. 15L55-68 “UE 105 may also obtain a location estimate at block 418 based on the location measurements and possibly based also on some or all of the assistance data received at action 415. The location measurements or the location estimate may be provided in an LPP Provide Location message”).
Claims 5-8, 13-14, 18-19, and 22-23 (Location Management Function LMF)
The rejections of Group I. Claims 1-4 and 9-12 (UE) supra are incorporated herein and applied to Group II. Claims 5, 6, 8, and 13-15 since applicant has expressly admitted Group II. Claims 5-8 and 13-15 to be obvious variants of Group I. Claims 1-4 and 9-12.
Applicant has expressly admitted on the record that Group I. Claims 1-4 and 9-12 and Group II. Claims 5-8, 13-14, 18-19, and 22-23 are obvious variants. See reply filed 1/28/2026 page 3 ( e.g. “Office Action further asserts that Group I and Group II are not obvious variants of each other. This is incorrect.” And “The claimed UE-side and network-side methods are merely mirror images of a single communication protocol.”).
Pertinent Prior Art(s)
The prior art made of record though not relied upon in the current rejection is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20190349881 A1 Choi; Hyung-Nam et al.
[0132] Example 12 is an apparatus of a location server, the apparatus comprising: processing circuitry arranged to: decode a capability message from a narrowband (NB) user equipment (UE), the capability message comprising position capabilities of the NB UE to support different positioning methods; encode, for transmission to the NB UE, a request for location information Long Term Evolution (LTE) Positioning Protocol (LPP) message, the request for location information LPP message comprising a request for positioning measurements and a NB response time to provide the positioning measurements dependent on the position capabilities received in the capability message, wherein the NB response time is longer than a response time for a non-NB UE; decode, from the NB UE, at least one LPP Provide Location Information message containing the positioning measurements; and determine a location of the NB UE based on the positioning measurements; a memory configured to store the positioning measurements.
[0113] If the NB-IoT UE 1002 capabilities received by the E-SMLC 1008 (e.g., access type NB-IoT) indicate that the positioning measurements are to occur during the idle state, the E-SMLC 1008 may determine additional response time is to be used by the NB-IoT UE 1002 to obtain the location measurements. The E-SMLC 1008 may send one or more LPP Request Location Information messages to the NB-IoT UE 1002 requesting positioning measurements or a location estimate. The LPP Request Location Information messages may include the response time. The LPP Request Location Information messages may include the response time, message size, QoS information and other information in a CommonIEsRequestLocationInformation IE given by
US 20170279899 A1 Jain; Amit et al.
[0047] A session may comprise one or more transactions. Transactions within a session may be said to be transactions of or belonging to that session. A transaction may be the performance of an operation conducted within and in support of its session. For example a transaction may comprise an operation involving the exchange of capabilities of devices. Capabilities in this context may refer to positioning and protocol capabilities related to LPP and the positioning methods supported by LPP. One transaction (e.g., often an initial transaction) of a location session may be a capability exchange (e.g., LPP Request/Provide Capabilities). This information exchange can make a server aware of the positioning capabilities of a UE (e.g., GNSS support, supported cellular network measurements, etc.). Based on this information, the server can make a decision on the positioning method to be used, based on both the UE capabilities and the requested quality-of-position (e.g., response time, accuracy).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 UMAIR AHSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-5 PM EST or by emailing UMAIR.AHSAN@USPTO.GOV.
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.
/UMAIR AHSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights