Detailed Action
1. This Action is in response to Applicant's Patent Application filed on January 12, 2024. Claims 1-15 are currently pending in the present application. This Action is made Non-Final.
America Invents Act (AIA ) Information
2. 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
3. The information disclosure statement(s) submitted within this application (has/have) been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 15 (is/are) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 15 claims “A non-volatile computer-readable storage medium” where the specification does not explicitly describe the term “A non-volatile computer-readable storage medium” as being a non-transitory physical structure and rather, it is silent regarding “A non-volatile computer-readable storage medium”). This type of description or lack thereof for the term “A non-volatile computer-readable storage medium” does not fall under the statutory subject matter. The Examiner suggests adding the term non-transitory in order to overcome the 101 rejection (e.g. a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 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.
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
8. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
9. Claims 1-3, 5 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK; Jonghyun et al. (US 20170111880 A1), hereafter “PARK,” in view of Kazmi; Muhammad et al. (US 20170339660 A1), hereafter “Kazmi.”
Consider claim 1, PARK discloses a method of operating a remote user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: (see fig. 6, par. 0118: “since the terminal performs a reference clock based on the subframe transmitted in the current serving cell, the signals received from the neighboring cells have different time of arrivals (TOA)”) receiving, by the remote UE, information on a positioning reference signal (PRS) transmitted by a plurality of base stations (BSs) (see par. 0018: “a terminal for performing positioning in a wireless communication system, including: a radio frequency (RF) unit for transmitting/receiving a wireless signal; and a processor functionally connected with the RF unit and controlling the terminal, wherein the processor controls receiving assistance data including reference cell information (ReferenceCellInfo) and neighboring cell information (NeighbourCellInfo) from a serving base station”); receiving, by the remote UE, a plurality of PRSs from at least some BSs among the plurality of BSs (see par. 0018: “receiving a positioning reference signal from each of a reference cell and at least one neighboring cell based on the received assistance data”); and measuring, by the remote UE, a reference signal time difference (RSTD) for each pair of PRSs among the plurality of PRSs (see par. 0018: “measuring a reference signal time difference (RSTD) for the reference cell of at least one neighboring cell by using the received positioning reference signal”).
PARK, however, does not particular refer to the following limitation taught by Kazmi, in analogous art; wherein the at least some BSs necessarily includes a BS with a best signal strength among BSs measured by the remote UE or a recommended BS of the remote UE (see par. 0052: “The network node may generally be a positioning node and/or a radio network node. A serving TP may be considered to be a radio network node, e.g. a base station or eNodeB,” par. 00127: “The maximum CSI-RSRP is −70 dBm corresponding to TP3. The network node uses the obtained information about the muting of the first reference signal of the first type (e.g. CRS) in TP3 to determine that the closest or strongest TP is TP2 and not TP3 (during the time instances when TP3's transmission is muted) i.e. TP corresponding to the second strongest CSI-RSRP. The network node can also determine the location of the UE based on UE and/or BS measurements and determination of closest TP of the UE,” par. 0135: “The UE therefore uses the obtained information about the muting of the first reference signal of the first type (e.g. CRS) in TP3 to determine that the closest or strongest TP is TP2”), .
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of PARK and have it include the teachings of Kazmi. The motivation would have been in order to improve location accuracy (see pars. 00127 and 00135).
Consider claim 2 in view of claim 1 above. Kazmi further discloses wherein the remote UE transmits information on the BS with the best signal strength (see par. 0135: “The UE uses the received information for determining the strongest or closet TP with respect to the UE in the shared cell. For example the UE performs the UE Rx-Tx time difference measurement in the shared cell i.e. the downlink component of the UE Rx-Tx time difference measurement is done on CRS which is common in all TPs in the shared cell.”) or the recommended BS of the remote UE to a serving BS (Examiner’s Note: claim is written in alternative format). The motivation would have been in order to improve location accuracy (see pars. 00127 and 00135).
Consider claim 3 in view of claim 1 above. Kazmi further discloses wherein in determining a location, the remote UE necessarily uses a PRS from the BS with the best signal strength or a PRS from the recommended BS of the remote UE, wherein the BSs are reported by the remote UE (see par. 0030: “The LTE OTDOA UE measurement is performed on positioning reference signal (PRS),” par. 0135: “The UE uses the received information for determining the strongest or closet TP with respect to the UE in the shared cell. For example the UE performs the UE Rx-Tx time difference measurement in the shared cell i.e. the downlink component of the UE Rx-Tx time difference measurement is done on CRS which is common in all TPs in the shared cell.”) or the recommended BS of the remote UE to a serving BS (Examiner’s Note: claim is written in alternative format). The motivation would have been in order to improve location accuracy (see pars. 00127 and 00135).
Consider claim 5 in view of claim 1 above, PARK further discloses wherein the remote UE determines a location of the remote UE based on measurement results (see par. 0103: “The number of REs in a measurement frequency band and a measurement interval used by the UE in order to determine the RSRP may be determined by the UE within a limit in which corresponding accuracy requirements are satisfied”).
Consider claim 12, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 1. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 1. Furthermore, PARK, at paragraph 349 discloses processor and memory.
Consider claim 13 in view of claim 1 above, PARK further discloses wherein the remote UE communicates with at least one of another UE, a UE related to an autonomous vehicle, a BS, or a network (see par. 0008: “a method for performing positioning by a terminal in a wireless communication system including: receiving assistance data including reference cell information (ReferenceCellInfo) and neighboring cell information (NeighbourCellInfo) from a serving base station”).
Consider claim 14, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 1. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 1. Furthermore, PARK, at paragraph 349 discloses processor and memory.
Consider claim 15, the subject matter recited in this claim has already been addressed in rejection to claim 1. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected based upon the rejection to claim 1. Furthermore, PARK, at paragraph 348 discloses processor and memory for storing computer information to carry out the tasks as in claim 1 above.
10. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK in view of Kazmi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fischer; Sven (US 20160337798 A1), hereafter “Fischer.”
Consider claim 4 in view of claim 1 above. PARK, as modified by Kazmi discloses all the limitations that this claim depends upon, but does not particularly refer to the following limitation as taught by Fischer, in analogous art, wherein in determining a location, the remote UE skips performing measurements on a serving cell (see par. 0104: “In message flow 500, because serving cell 145-2 cannot participate in the OTDOA positioning (as determined in step 502), none of the OTDOA assistance data cells provided to MS 120 in step 512 include MS serving cell 145-2”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of PARK, as modified by Kazmi and have it include the teachings of Fischer. The motivation would have been in to rely on the nearby cells (see par. 0104).
11. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK in view of Kazmi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yilmaz; Osman Nuri Can et al. (US 20220322036 A1), hereafter “Yilmaz.”
Consider claim 6 in view of claim 1 above. PARK, as modified by Kazmi discloses all the limitations that this claim depends upon, but does not particularly refer to the following limitation as taught by Yilmaz, in analogous art, wherein the remote UE transmits measurement results to a serving cell and receives information on a location of the remote UE determined by a location management function (LMF) based on the measurement results l (see par. 0037: “Also, for example, based on a request for UE position (e.g., by an application or another node), the LMF may initiate or request a positioning session for the UE (e.g., in order to obtain a position of the UE, or to obtain signal measurements that may be used by the LMF to determine the UE position). The LMF may determine or estimate the UE's position based on the received signal parameters or signal measurements, or the LMF may receive the UE position as estimated by the UE). The LMF may, for example, report or send the UE's position to a requesting node or application (e.g., to the serving gNB, a neighbor gNB, or an application running on a node or device within a network, which may have requested a position of the UE).”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of PARK, as modified by Kazmi and have it include the teachings of Yilmaz. The motivation would have been to use the location management function for location sharing (see par. 0037).
12. Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK in view of Kazmi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LI; Xiaolong (US 20240163830 A1), hereafter “LI.”
Consider claim 8 in view of claim 1 above. PARK, as modified by Kazmi discloses all the limitations that this claim depends upon, but does not particularly refer to the following limitation as taught by LI, in analogous art, wherein the information on the PRS transmitted by the plurality of BSs is included in a positioning SIB (proSIB). (see par. 0319: “after receiving the PRS configuration information returned by the base station through the non-UE associated message, the LMF device triggers the base station to send an updated positioning SIB, so that the updated positioning SIB contains the updated PRS configuration information, so that each terminal device may receive the updated PRS configuration information, thereby improving the positioning precision and reliability of each terminal device”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of PARK, as modified by Kazmi and have it include the teachings of LI. The motivation would have been for improving the positioning precision and reliability of each terminal device (see par. 0219).
Consider claim 9 in view of claim 8 above. LI further discloses the proSIB includes a PRS configuration related to the plurality of BSs (see par. 0098: “The communication system may include two or more base stations, two or more terminal devices, and two or more LMF devices in practical applications”). The motivation would have been for improving the positioning precision and reliability of each terminal device (see par. 0219).
Consider claim 10 in view of claim 8 above. LI further discloses wherein the proSIB is transmitted by a serving BS of a relay UE (see fig. 11, par. 0225: “For example, the base station may send the updated PRS configuration information to the LMF device through a positioning information response message” and par. 0226: “the LMF device receives the updated PRS configuration information and sends the configuration information to the terminal device 1 through an LPP message”). The motivation would have been for improving the positioning precision and reliability of each terminal device (see par. 0219).
Consider claim 11 in view of claim 8 above. LI further discloses wherein a serving BS of a relay UE is identical to a serving BS of the remote UE (see fig. 11, par. 0225: “For example, the base station may send the updated PRS configuration information to the LMF device through a positioning information response message” and par. 0226: “the LMF device receives the updated PRS configuration information and sends the configuration information to the terminal device 1 through an LPP message”). The motivation would have been for improving the positioning precision and reliability of each terminal device (see par. 0219).
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claim(s) 7 (is/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
14. The following prior arts are made of record and not relied upon, but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 12652638 B2: discloses determining timing offset for improved positioning accuracy
US 20260107252 A1: discloses supporting relay node assisted positioning
US 20260075570 A1: discloses ai-based positioning method and device performing the same
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Marcos Batista, whose telephone number is (571) 270-5209. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm.
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, Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez can be reached at (571) 272-7915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARCOS BATISTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
June 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights