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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/22/2026 has been entered.
The applicant's arguments with respect to claim 6 are fully considered, however they are not deemed to be persuasive; for examiner response to the applicant’s arguments see “Response to Arguments” section below.
Response to Arguments
On page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant argues applicability of Bao to the rejection of claim 6 by stating:
“As acknowledged by the Examiner in the Office Action, Bao's teaching of collinearity is with respect to the target UE (first terminal), not the second terminal. … The Office Action's obviousness rationale relies on a suggestion that the collinearity determination "may also be made with respect to other components of the system" based on the phrase "at least" in paragraph [0109] of Bao. However, this is not a clear teaching or motivation to maintain the current rejection. Instead, it is mere speculation. Bao's explicit teaching is that the indication of collinearity is given with respect to the estimated location of the target terminal which is different from what is explicitly recited in claim 6.”
In response, the Examiner would like to draw the Applicant’s attention to the MPEP, 2144.01: "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976) (Reference disclosure of a compound where the R-S-R' portion has "at least one methylene group attached to the sulfur atom" implies that the other R group attached to the sulfur atom can be other than methylene and therefore suggests asymmetric dialkyl moieties.).
In other words, MPEP cites very similar case of using “at least” and clearly indicates that this is sufficient to suggest additional components may also be covered, which is clearly the case with Bao, as is explained in greater detail in the rejection of claim 6 below.
Therefore, the Applicant’s argument with respect to claim 6 is not found to be persuasive.
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.
Claims 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220353843 (Bao).
Regarding claim 6, Bao teaches “An apparatus for a second terminal (paragraph 0106: in FIG. 8, a positioning entity 800. The positioning entity 800 may be integrated in the user equipment. Paragraph 0108: For SL-based joint positioning, the positioning entity may be part of a UE with knowledge of the location(s) of the anchor(s), one or more of which may be UEs, with the UE containing positioning entity possibly being an anchor. In other words, when the positioning entity 800 is included in a user device, this user device would represent “a second terminal”), the apparatus comprising:
at least one processor (processor 810 in FIG 8); and at least one memory (memory 830 in FIG 8) comprising computer code that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the apparatus to:
determine a degree of collinearity of at least two transmission points (paragraph 0110: The positioning entity 800 may be configured to provide one or more anchor group attributes to a target UE, e.g., the UE 700. An anchor group attribute may be a line attribute indicating a line that passes through each of the group members or that passes within a threshold distance of each of the group members. This represents claimed “a degree of collinearity of at least two transmission points”, and since it is provided to the target UE, it must have been determined prior to providing)…”
transmit, to a first terminal, an indication of the degree of collinearity of the at least two transmission points (paragraph 0110: The positioning entity 800 may be configured to provide one or more anchor group attributes to a target UE, e.g., the UE 700 (“a first terminal”). An anchor group attribute may be a line attribute indicating a line that passes through each of the group members or that passes within a threshold distance of each of the group members. This represents claimed “an indication of a degree of collinearity”)…”
In Bao, as disclosed in paragraphs 0109 and 0110, the positioning entity 800 may be configured to determine that devices (candidate anchors) are geographically similar (at least with respect to a target UE whose location is to be determined) and thus may be considered to be members of an anchor group. For example, the anchor group management unit 850 may obtain one or more present locations of one or more corresponding candidate anchors to determine that multiple candidate anchors are geographically similar (e.g., in close proximity to each other, disposed along or close to along a line relative to a target UE). The transmitted anchor group attribute may be a line attribute indicating a line that passes through each of the group members or that passes within a threshold distance of each of the group members. The line may be a line that also passes through the target UE. In other words, in Bao, the explicit teaching is that the indication of collinearity is given with respect to the estimated location of the target terminal, corresponding to “the first terminal” of instant claim. Thus, Bao does not teach that the collinearity indication is “relative to a/the location of the second terminal.”
However, paragraph 0109 states that the determination that the candidate anchors are geographically similar and that they may be considered to be members of an anchor group is performed at least with respect to a target UE whose location is to be determined. “At least” is a clear suggestion that this determination may also be made with respect to other components of the system, including the user equipment which includes the positioning entity 800, representing “the second terminal” of instant claim. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that this determination with respect to the target UE may only be performed when the estimated location of the target UE is known (as stated in paragraph 0110).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application and in view of clear suggestion in paragraph 0109 as explained above, to perform determination and subsequent transmission to the target UE 510 of such information that the candidate anchors are geographically similar and may be considered to be members of an anchor group and/or disposed along or close to along a line (“an indication of a degree of collinearity”) with respect to the UE including the positioning entity 800 (“the second terminal” as explained above) in addition to, or instead of, the explicitly disclosed determination of the candidate anchors disposed along or close to along a line relative to a target UE. Doing so would have been especially beneficial, and perhaps the only way of doing it, when the estimated location of the target terminal is not known.
Additional explanations may be found in section Response to Arguments above which is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, “wherein the apparatus is caused to: transmit to the first terminal an indication of a relative degree of signal quality for the at least two transmission points” (as in claim 8) and “wherein the indication of the relative degree of signal quality comprises indications of respective signal qualities for the at least two transmission points (as in claim 9), the claims do not require actual determination of these signal qualities, nor do the claims require usage of these signal qualities for any purpose. Therefore, these limitations merely recite content of the transmitted signals and thus comprise nonfunctional descriptive material which is not entitled to patentable weight.
“[T]he nature of the information being manipulated does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable computer-implemented product or process.” Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1889 (BPAI 2008) (precedential)
The court stated that, although limitations reciting printed matter cannot be ignored, “[w]here the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Although the printed matter must be considered, in that situation it may not be entitled to patentable weight.” In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Material is printed matter if it is “claimed for what it communicates.” In re Distefano, 808 F.3d 845, 850 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The limitation of claims 8 and 9 merely characterize the specific content of the transmitted information signals. Thus, the claimed limitations are directed to printed matter. See id. at 848 (A claim limitation is directed to printed matter “if it claims the content of information.”).
If a claim in a patent application claims printed matter, “one must then determine if the matter is functionally or structurally related to the associated physical substrate, and only if the answer is ‘no’ is the printed matter owed no patentable weight.” Distefano, 808 F.3d at 851. In claims 8 and 9, the claimed content of the transmitted information signals is not specifically related to the structure of the transmitted information signals, or explicitly used in the claim such as by the wireless telecommunication system to perform any function. Rather, the content of the information signals is not functionally distinct from any other information that is transmitted or received. Accordingly, the limitations of claims 8 and 9 constitute nonfunctional descriptive material and printed matter not functionally related to the associated substrate, which are not entitled to patentable weight. The content of the information signals in the present claims is analogous to the data in Curry, where the type of data was found to be nonfunctional descriptive material in that it “does not functionally change either the data storage system or communication system used in the method of [the] claim.” Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d at 1274.
Because the content of the information signals specified by the limitations of claims 8 and 9 constitutes nonfunctional descriptive material, the particular type of transmitted information recited in claims 8 and 9 is not entitled to patentable weight.
Regarding claim 19, Bao teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the indication of the degree of collinearity is transmitted to the first terminal via device-to-device signalling (in the rejection of claim 6 above it was explained that the positioning entity 800 may be integrated in the user equipment. Paragraph 0108: For SL-based joint positioning, the positioning entity may be part of a UE (“the second terminal”) with knowledge of the location(s) of the anchor(s), one or more of which may be UEs, with the UE containing positioning entity possibly being an anchor. Thus, “the second terminal” may be the terminal 533 in FIG 5 performing sidelink (SL) communication with the target terminal 510 (“the first terminal”). Therefore, transmission of the information on anchor grouping (“the indication of the degree of collinearity”) is performed from the anchor terminal 533 to the target terminal 510 through sidelink communication (“via device-to-device signalling”).).”
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220353843 (Bao) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US 20200396720 (Li).
Regarding claim 7, Bao teaches or fairly suggests “…transmission of device-to-device signalling indicating the degree of collinearity of at least two transmission points from the second terminal to the first terminal; and…” “…the second terminal to transmit the indication of the degree of collinearity (in the rejection of claim 6 above it was explained that the positioning entity 800 may be integrated in the user equipment. Paragraph 0108: For SL-based joint positioning, the positioning entity may be part of a UE (“the second terminal”) with knowledge of the location(s) of the anchor(s), one or more of which may be UEs, with the UE containing positioning entity possibly being an anchor. Thus, “the second terminal” may be the terminal 533 in FIG 5 performing sidelink (SL) communication with the target terminal 510 (“the first terminal”). Therefore, transmission of the information on anchor grouping (“the indication of a degree of collinearity”) is performed from the anchor terminal 533 to the target terminal 510 through sidelink communication.).”
Bao does not teach “wherein the apparatus is caused to: receive, from a network function, configuration information suitable for configuring” transmission of device-to-device signalling and “use the configuration information to configure” this sidelink communication. Generally, Bao does not disclose how the sidelink communication between the anchor terminal 533 and the target terminal 510 is set up.
Li in FIG 4 with corresponding description teaches a diagram illustrating a call flow 400 for centralized scheduling of sidelink communication. Particularly, Li teaches “wherein the apparatus is caused to: receive, from a network function, configuration information suitable for configuring transmission of device-to-device signalling…” “…from the second terminal to the first terminal (paragraph 0094: the base station 402 may send information 422 indicating the set of resources allocated on the sidelink control channel 410a as control information on the downlink control channel 408. Paragraph 0096: the information 422 indicating the set of resources allocated on the sidelink control channel 410a may be applicable to both the first and second UEs 404a, 404b. Thus, the base station 402 may assign the downlink control channel 408 to both the first UE 404a and the second UE 404b. Paragraph 0097: The first UE 404a and the second UE 404b may each receive and decode information carried on the downlink control channel 408.); and use the configuration information to configure the second terminal to transmit the [information] (paragraph 0101: The first UE 404a may then send control information 424 on the sidelink control channel 410a based on the information 422 indicating the set of resources allocated on the sidelink control channel 410a. Paragraph 0104: Because UE 404b receives the same information 422 on the downlink control channel 408 as 404a, UE 404b may monitor the same set of resources of the sidelink control channel 410a on which UE 404a sends the control information 424. Paragraph 0106: Subsequently, UE 404a may directly send data 426 on the sidelink data channel 410b to UE 404b based on the control information 424.)...”
In other words, Li describes configuring both devices for sidelink communication regardless of the specific data being transmitted between them.
Therefore, since Bao does not disclose the process of setting up sidelink communications between devices 533 and 510 in FIG 5, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Li configuration process for the sidelink communication, in the system of Bao simply to fill in where Bao is silent and to provide configuring process for the devices to communicate with each other.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220353843 (Bao) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US 20210377697 (YERRAMALLI).
Regarding claim 18, Bao does not teach “wherein the degree of collinearity of at least two transmission points relative to the location of the second terminal is determined based on transmissions from each of the at least two transmission points to the apparatus.”
YERRAMALLI in paragraph 0125 teaches that the quality of a location estimate that can be obtained from a group of transmitters (e.g., base stations, WLAN APs, GNSS satellites, positioning beacons, etc.) can be quantified using a metric referred to as dilution of precision (DOP). DOP is a well-known metric that represents the effect on the precision of positioning measurements due to the geometry of the transmitters relative to the target UE. Paragraph 0126 further states that when the transmitters are close together from the perspective of the receiver (e.g., multiple transmitters may be spatially separated but appear in a line from the perspective of the receiver), the geometry is said to be weak and the DOP value is high. When the transmitters are far apart from the perspective of the receiver, the geometry is strong and the DOP value is low. Thus, a low DOP value represents better location precision due to the wider angular separation between the transmitters used to calculate the receiver's location.
Mapping this teaching to the claim language, in the former case when the transmitters, from the perspective of the receiver, are spatially separated but appear in a line from the perspective of the receiver, “the degree of collinearity of at least two transmission points relative to the location of the second terminal” is high. In the latter case, “the degree of collinearity of at least two transmission points relative to the location of the second terminal” is low.
This is also further illustrated in FIG 6 and paragraph 0129. Thus, for UE 604-1, because base station 602-4 is substantially in line with base station 602-3 from the perspective of the UE 604-1, adding base station 602-4 to the set of base stations 602 the UE 604-1 is measuring would be unlikely to improve, at least significantly, the location estimate for UE 604-1. In other words, “the degree of collinearity of at least two transmission points (base station 602-4 is substantially in line with base station 602-3) relative to the location of the second terminal (UE 604-1)” is high. Similarly, for UE 604-2, because base stations 602-1 and 602-2 are substantially in line with base station 602-3 from the perspective of the UE 604-2, adding base stations 602-1 and 602-2 to the set of base stations 602 the UE 604-2 is measuring would be unlikely to improve, at least significantly, the location estimate for UE 604-2.
In other words, in YERRAMALLI, determining DOP also determines “the degree of collinearity of at least two transmission points relative to the location of the second terminal.” In this respect, this is shown in FIG 7 with corresponding description. Specifically, paragraph 0134: the UE 704 may measure PRS from all of the TRPs from which the signal strength of the received PRS is above some threshold. The UE 704 may determine its coarse location from the PRS transmitted by one or more of the measured TRPs. The UE 704 reports the determined location to the LMF 770. In this case, the UE 704 corresponds to the claimed “the apparatus” and reception and measurement of PRS from multiple TRPs by the UE 704 corresponds to the claimed “transmissions from each of the at least two transmission points to the apparatus.” Paragraph 0136: At 710, the LMF 770 configures the UE 704 with a DOP threshold, and locations of the N TRPs. Paragraphs 0143 – 0144: With this information, the UE 704 can calculate the DOP for different sets of TRPs. Accordingly, at 715, the UE 704 iteratively selects up to K sets of M TRPs and calculates the associated DOP for each set. However, DOP also determines “the degree of collinearity of at least two transmission points relative to the location of the second terminal” (UE 704), as was explained above.
Summarizing, YERRAMALLI teaches “the degree of collinearity of at least two transmission points relative to the location of the second terminal (DOP in YERRAMALLI) is determined based on transmissions from each of the at least two transmission points to the apparatus (determination of DOP for various sets of TRPs is determined based on initially measured PRSs received from these TRPs).”
Therefore, since Bao does not appear to disclose how the collinearity is determined, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by YERRAMALLI method of determination of DOP (which is indicative of “collinearity”), in the system of Bao simply to fill in where Bao is silent and with predictable results since, according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 5 are allowed because none of the references of record disclose or would have made obvious “compute a time of arrival for the indication of the degree of collinearity; determine whether to use the indication of the degree of collinearity for selecting a subset of the at least two transmission points, said determining being based on the computed time of arrival.”
Claims 10 and 11 are allowed because of the reasons indicated in the office action mailed on 11/19/2025.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GENNADIY TSVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/GENNADIY TSVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights