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
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated 11/19/2024, 11/30/2023 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the examiner is attached to the instant office action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 16, 17 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.
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.
Independent Claims
Claim(s) 1, 7, 13, 14, 15, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US-20220113364) in view of Huawei et al. “Enhancement to support multi-path and NLOS mitigation,” 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #105-e, May 10-27, 2021, R1-2104281.
As to claim 1, 7, 13, 14, 15, 19: Zhou teaches a method for measuring transmission delay, applied to a terminal device, the method comprising, acquiring a downlink reference signal sent by a base station (abstract receiving, by a User Equipment (UE), from a first Transmission and Reception Point (TRP) of a network, a Positioning Reference Signal (PRS)), and determining a line of sight (LOS) path and a reference path from a plurality of transmission paths of the downlink reference signal ([0040, 48]); acquiring a reference delay difference that is a difference between a downlink transmission delay of the LOS path and a downlink transmission delay of the reference path ([0040] If it is sharp, then the UE determines, at 425, that the first detected path is a LOS path; [0048] the UE reports, for each of a plurality of other paths not including the first detected path, the arrival time difference relative to the arrival time of the first detected path); sending an uplink reference signal to the base station, to cause the base station to obtain an uplink transmission delay of the reference path based on the uplink reference signal ([0036] the UE 105 may send, to the TRPs 110 (i) Sounding Reference Signals (SRSs) to the TRPs 110 and (ii) receive-transmit (Rx-Tx) time differences).
Zhou may not explicitly teach and reporting the reference delay difference to the base station, to cause the base station to obtain an uplink transmission delay of the LOS path based on the uplink transmission delay of the reference path and the reference delay difference. However, Huawei teaches and reporting the reference delay difference to the base station, to cause the base station to obtain an uplink transmission delay of the LOS path based on the uplink transmission delay of the reference path and the reference delay difference (section 2.1 IE contains UL RTOA, gNB Rx-Tx time difference; section 2.2 In addition, the additional delay for the additional paths relative to the first path can also be reported).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement UL time difference, taught by Huawei, into the LOS time difference, taught by Zhou, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and accurately obtain LOS UL delay. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Huawei and Zhou in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Dependent Claims
Claim(s) 5, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US-20220113364), Huawei in view of Chen (WO-2020061844-A1).
As to claim 5, 10: Zhou teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
Zhou may not explicitly teach wherein before reporting the measurement parameter difference to the base station, the method further comprises, determining a receiving beam for the downlink reference signal; and determining the receiving beam as a transmitting beam for transmitting the uplink reference signal. However, Chen teaches wherein before reporting the measurement parameter difference to the base station, the method further comprises, determining a receiving beam for the downlink reference signal; and determining the receiving beam as a transmitting beam for transmitting the uplink reference signal (spatial transmission filter that receives the downlink reference signal is the same as the spatial transmission filter that sends the uplink signal in the first cell).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement re-using a beam for UL and DL, taught by Chen, into the reference signals, taught by Zhou, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and improve measurement accuracy. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Zhou and Chen in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 6, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US-20220113364) in view of Huawei.
As to claim 6, 11: Zhou teaches the method as claimed in claim 1.
Zhou may not explicitly teach wherein reporting the reference delay difference to the base station comprises, generating a communication signaling carrying the reference delay difference; and sending the communication signaling to the base station. However, Huawei teaches wherein reporting the reference delay difference to the base station comprises, generating a communication signaling carrying the reference delay difference; and sending the communication signaling to the base station (section 2.1 IE contains UL RTOA, gNB Rx-Tx time difference; section 2.2 In addition, the additional delay for the additional paths relative to the first path can also be reported).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement UL time difference, taught by Huawei, into the LOS time difference, taught by Zhou, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and accurately obtain LOS UL delay. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Huawei and Zhou in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US-20220113364), Huawei in view of Soriaga (WO-2020146838-A1).
As to claim 12, 18: Zhou teaches a method for positioning.
Zhou may not explicitly teach applied to a positioning server in communicatively connection with a base station and a terminal device respectively, the method comprising, acquiring a downlink transmission delay of a line of sight (LOS) path sent by the terminal device and an uplink transmission delay of the LOS path sent by the base station, wherein the uplink transmission delay of the LOS path is obtained according to the method as claimed in claim 1; and determining location information of the terminal device based on the downlink transmission delay and the uplink transmission delay of the LOS path. However, Soriaga teaches applied to a positioning server in communicatively connection with a base station and a terminal device respectively, the method comprising, acquiring a downlink transmission delay of a line of sight (LOS) path sent by the terminal device and an uplink transmission delay of the LOS path sent by the base station, wherein the uplink transmission delay of the LOS path is obtained according to the method as claimed in claim 1 ([0170] At 1502, the positioning entity receives, from a first listening node, a first time difference (e.g., T.sub.BS-R.sub.X®UE-R.sub.X in FIG. 8) between a first ToA (e.g., time T.sub.3 in FIG. 8) at the first listening node of a first reference RE signal (e.g., an RTT measurement signal) sent by a TRP to a UE and a second ToA (e.g., time T.sub.6 in FIG. 8) at the first listening node of a second reference RF signal (e.g., an RTT response signal) sent by the UE to the TRP); and determining location information of the terminal device based on the downlink transmission delay and the uplink transmission delay of the LOS path ([0158] positioning entity estimates location of UE based on time difference).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement positioning estimate entity, taught by Soriaga, into the LOS RS, taught by Zhou, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and obtain accurate estimates for UE location. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Zhou and Soriaga in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is (571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12p-8p.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 5712727969. 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.
/ANDREW C OH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466