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 March 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on page 3 or Remarks that Syrjarinne’s cost-based selection pertains to selecting which A-GNSS assistance data features to obtain from different carriers, not to “selecting, based on the one or more parameters, a device to perform the one or more position operations.” In Syrjarinne, the same device 100 performs the positioning operations; the selection is merely about which assistance data features to combine from different carriers.
The limitations of “determining one or more parameters,…, indicative of a cost to perform one or more positioning operations…” means figuring out a metric or a value that reflects how much effort or resources are needed to determine a location.
It is important to note that claim language fails to clearly define and/or what could be considered as a “parameter” or a “cost”. Due to the broadness of claim language, it is in the Examiner’s position to give the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim language. In this case, the step of determining and comparing the capability information from carriers in Syrjarinne reads on the argued features because it figures out a metric or a value when comparing the capability information from carriers in order to determine the effort level, which is the cost needed to determine a location. Hence, this teaching reads on the argued features, and previous rejections are maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 12-13, 23-24, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Syrjarinne et al. (hereinafter “Syrjarinne”, US 2013/0079000).
Regarding claims 1, 12, 23, and 30, Syrjarinne discloses a device (i.e., a wireless device 100 as shown in Fig. 5) selection method for positioning, an apparatus, and a non-transitory, processor-readable storage medium comprising processor-readable instructions, comprising:
determining one or more parameters, corresponding to a plurality of user equipment subscriber identity modules (UE SIMs) (i.e., the wireless deice 100 includes first SIM 230 and second SIM 230’ as shown in Fig. 5), indicative of a cost to perform one or more positioning operations for determining position information for a target UE, or indicative of a proximity of the target UE to a primary UE that contains at least one of the plurality of UE SIMs (i.e., comparing capability information from the carriers in step 406 of Fig. 4. Also, see paragraphs 0047-0052); and
selecting, based on the one or more parameters, a device to perform the one or more positioning operations (i.e., selecting optimal first features specified by the first assistance data in step 408. Also see paragraphs 0047-0052).
With further regard to claim 12, Syrjarinne also discloses an apparatus (i.e., a wireless device 100 as shown in Fig. 5) comprising:
a transceiver (i.e., GNSS receiver 210);
a memory (i.e., A-GNSS services memory 240); and
a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory (i.e., processor 215 coupled to the GNSS receiver 210 and A-GNSS services memory 240).
Regarding claims 2, 13, and 24, Syrjarinne discloses all limitations recited within claims as described above. Syrjarinne also discloses wherein the one or more parameters are indicative of the cost to perform the one or more positioning operations, and wherein the cost to perform one or more position operations comprises a monetary cost (i.e., the selection is based on the cost as described in paragraph 0147).
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) 3, 14, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syrjarinne in view of Weng et al. (hereinafter “Weng”, US 2016/0238712).
Regarding claims 3, 14, and 25, Syrjarinne discloses all limitations recited within claims as described above, but does not expressly disclose features of these claims.
In a similar endeavor, Weng discloses method and apparatus for power saving in global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receivers. Weng also discloses wherein the one or more parameters are indicative of the cost to perform the one or more positioning operations, and wherein the cost to perform one or more position operations comprises a power consumption of the target UE (i.e., user power requirement as described in paragraphs 0006, 0025, and 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to conserve the power of the UE.
Claim(s) 4, 15, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syrjarinne in view of Vejlgaard et al. (hereinafter “Vejlgaard”, US 2022/0159612).
Regarding claims 4, 15, and 26, Syrjarinne discloses all limitations recited within claims as described above. Syrjarinne also discloses wherein:
the one or more parameters are indicative of the cost to perform the one or more positioning operations (i.e., comparing capability information from the carriers in step 406 of Fig. 4. Also, see paragraphs 0047-0052). Syrjarinne, however, does not expressly disclose the remaining features of these claims.
In a similar endeavor, Vejlgaard discloses device positioning for multi-SIM user equipment. Vejlgaard also discloses:
the method further comprises receiving, at a network entity from the target UE, an indication that the target UE includes the plurality of UE SIMs (i.e., receiving at LMF 100X from UE 106 a report USIM capability and other SIM (Y) as shown in step 202 of Fig. 2); and
selecting the device to perform the one or more positioning operations comprises routing a location request to one of the plurality of UE SIMs (i.e., sending a positioning request in step 204 of Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to retrieve and locate the position of the UE.
Claim(s) 5, 16, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syrjarinne in view of Vejlgaard, and further in view of Lovlekar et al. (hereinafter “Lovlekar”, US 2021/0014667).
Regarding claims 5, 16, and 27, Syrjarinne, and Vejlgaard disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but do not expressly disclose features of these claims.
In a similar endeavor, Lovlekar discloses throughput and radio resource utilization for user equipment having multiple subscriber identity modules. Lovlekar also discloses wherein the one or more parameters are indicative of whether each of the plurality of UE SIMs, that are included in the target UE, is in an idle mode or an inactive mode or a connected mode, and wherein the location request is routed to a first SIM of the plurality of UE SIMs based on the one or more parameters indicating that the first SIM of the plurality of UE SIMs is in the connected mode and that a second SIM of the plurality of UE SIMs is in the idle mode or the inactive mode, or that the first SIM of the plurality of UE SIMs is in the inactive mode and that the second SIM of the plurality of UE SIMs is in the idle mode (i.e., the first SIM is in connected state while the second SIM is in an idle state, and selecting one of the RF chains as described in paragraphs 0006-0008, and 0239).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to select the optimal network to connect the UE for services.
Claim(s) 6, 17, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syrjarinne in view of Qi (US 2023/0284171).
Regarding claims 6, 17, and 28, Syrjarinne discloses all limitations recited within claims as described above, but does not expressly disclose features of these claims.
In a similar endeavor, Qi discloses method and apparatus for positioning of user equipment. Qi also discloses wherein the one or more parameters are indicative of the cost to perform the one or more positioning operations, and wherein the one or more parameters are indicative, for each of the plurality of UE SIMs, of a respective idle mode discontinuous reception configuration and a respective positioning reference signal configuration (i.e., the DRX and the PRS are arranged to match so that the UE is able to detect the PRS or transmit PRS when it wakes up as described in paragraph 0061).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to enable the UE to detect and/or transmit the PRS signals.
Claim(s) 8-9, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syrjarinne in view of Amin et al. (hereinafter “Amin”, US 2020/0081091).
Regarding claims 8, and 19, Syrjarinne discloses all limitations recited within claims as described above, but does not expressly disclose features of these claims.
In a similar endeavor, Amin discloses method, system, and device for obtaining location information using neighbor awareness networking. Amin also discloses wherein determining the one or more parameters comprises the target UE determining that the primary UE is within a threshold distance of the target UE (i.e., the ranging function, and triggering based on the range condition is met as described in paragraph 0064), and wherein the method further comprises reporting, from the target UE to a network entity, that the primary UE is within the threshold distance of the target UE (i.e., reporting the location to the location server as described in paragraph 0070).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to accurately determine the location of the UE.
Regarding claims 9, and 20, Syrjarinne discloses all limitations recited within claims as described above, but does not expressly disclose features of these claims.
In a similar endeavor, Amin discloses method, system, and device for obtaining location information using neighbor awareness networking. Amin also discloses wherein the one or more parameters are indicative of the proximity of the target UE to the primary UE (i.e., the ranging function, and triggering based on the range condition is met as described in paragraph 0064), and wherein the method further comprises reporting, by the target UE to a network entity, the position information for the target UE regardless of the proximity of the target UE to the primary UE (i.e., reporting the location to the location server as described in paragraph 0070).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to accurately determine the location of the UE.
Claim(s) 11, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Syrjarinne in view of Li et al. (hereinafter “Li”, US 2021/0227602).
Regarding claims 11, and 22, Syrjarinne discloses all limitations recited within claims as described above, but does not expressly disclose features of these claims.
In a similar endeavor, Li discloses method and apparatus of handling device-to-device resource selection with consideration on discontinuous reception operation in a wireless communication system. Li also discloses wherein the one or more parameters are indicative of the cost to perform the one or more positioning operations, and wherein selecting the device to perform the one or more positioning operations comprises selecting the device to perform sidelink signal transfer with the target UE (i.e., configuring sidelink for communication as described in paragraph 0381).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to improve the latency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 10, 18, 21, and 29 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
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 WAYNE CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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 on (571)270-5371. 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.
/Wayne H Cai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights