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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/14/23 is being considered by the examiner.
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
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) 1-5, 10-11, 13-17, 22-23, 25-29, 34-35, 37-40 and 46-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2021/0219103 A1).
Consider claim 1, Wang teaches a method of wireless communication performed by a first user equipment (UE) (abstract and Fig. 16), the method comprising:
identifying a set of positioning peer UEs, the set comprising at least one positioning peer UE (paragraph 203, the target UE may discover potential assisting UEs and the assisting UE’s identification; and
performing a UE-initiated sidelink positioning reference signal (SL-PRS) configuration process, the process comprising, for each of at least one positioning peer UE in the set of positioning peer UEs, selecting a desired SL-PRS configuration to be used by the respective positioning peer UE, and indicating, to the respective positioning peer UE, the desired SL-PRS configuration (paragraph 204-207, the target UE sends an SL RefSig configuration to the assisting UE where the SL RefSig configuration is the claimed SL-PRS).
Consider claims 13, 25 and 37, claims 13, 25 and 37 are the apparatus and non-transitory computer-readable medium claims of claim 1 and having similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claims 13, 25 and 37 are rejected for the same reasons claim 1 is rejected.
Consider claims 2, 14, 26 and 38, Wang also teaches wherein identifying the set of positioning peer UEs comprises performing a sidelink (SL) positioning peer discovery process (paragraph 203).
Consider claims 3, 15, 27 and 39, Wang also teaches wherein selecting the desired SL-PRS configuration to be used by the respective positioning peer UE comprises selecting the desired SL-PRS configuration based on a capability of the first UE, or a capability of the respective positioning peer UE, or combinations thereof (paragraph 12, 149, 158, 167 and 201, the sidelink RefSig configuration is based on the capability of the UE and the target UE).
Consider claims 4, 16, 28 and 40, Wang also teaches wherein the capability of the first UE or the respective positioning peer UE comprises a power budget or constraint, a transmission capability, a processing capability, or combinations thereof (paragraph 45, 56 and 148, measurement capability and sending capability).
Consider claims 5, 17, 29 and 41, Wang also teaches wherein the desired SL-PRS configuration comprises a desired periodicity, number of transactions, repetition factor, time gap between repetitions, comb size, bandwidth, resource element offset, number of symbols per slot, or scrambling identifier, or combinations thereof (paragraph 203, the RefSig configuration may be number of repetitions, period, etc.).
Consider claims 10, 22, 34 and 46, Wang also teaches wherein indicating the desired SL-PRS configuration to the respective positioning peer UE comprises indicating, to the respective positioning peer UE, one or more desired characteristics or attributes for a SL-PRS configuration (paragraph 16, 185 and 203).
Consider claims 11, 23, 35 and 47, Wang also teaches detecting a reconfiguration trigger condition; and reperforming the UE-initiated SL-PRS configuration process in response to detecting the reconfiguration trigger condition (paragraph 201-204).
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) 6-7, 9, 18-19, 21, 30-31, 33, 42-43 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0219103 A1) in view of Yilmaz et al. (US 2024/0276430 A1).
Consider claims 6-7, 18-19, 30-31 and 42-43, Wang does not teach wherein selecting the desired SL-PRS configuration to be used by the respective positioning peer UE comprises selecting the desired SL-PRS configuration from a set of resource pool configurations or wherein the set of resource pool configurations is common to all of the positioning peer UEs in the set of positioning peer UEs.
Yilmaz further teaches wherein selecting the desired SL-PRS configuration to be used by the respective positioning peer UE comprises selecting the desired SL-PRS configuration from a set of resource pool configurations or wherein the set of resource pool configurations is common to all of the positioning peer UEs in the set of positioning peer UEs (paragraph 27 and 70).
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 using a proper configuration for effectively performing positioning function.
Consider claims 9, 21, 33 and 45, Yilmaz further teaches wherein indicating the desired SL-PRS configuration to the respective positioning peer UE comprises identifying one SL-PRS configuration from a set of SL-PRS configurations known to the respective positioning peer UE (paragraph 27 and 70).
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 using a proper configuration for effectively performing positioning function.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 12, 20, 24, 32, 36, 44 and 48 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 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 2/27/26