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 .
Acknowledgment
The Preliminary Amendment filed on 01/24/2024 has been received and placed of record. Accordingly, claims 20-24 have been cancelled and claims 1-19 and 25 are pending in the instant application.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 15, 18, 19 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by CATT (Document entitled: “Further discussion on on-demand PRS”; art cited by applicant).
Regarding independent claim 1, CATT teaches a method for requesting an on-demand positioning reference signal (PRS), performed by a location management function (LMF) device (page 2, fig. 1), comprising: receiving an on-demand PRS request message from a terminal (page 2, item #7, “LMF receives the on-demand PRS request from UE”), wherein the on-demand PRS request message is configured to request to obtain first PRS configuration information (page 2, items #5 and #6); and sending a response message to the terminal, in response to determining that the LMF device is unable to provide the first PRS configuration information for the terminal (page 2, item #7, “LMF determines that the requested PRS configuration is not available or has influence to other UEs, LMF may reject UE (step 10)”).
Regarding independent claims 9 and 25, the claims recite similar subject matter as in claim 1. Therefore, similar rationale is applied as for claim 1.
Regarding dependent claims 2 and 10, CATT further teaches wherein the on-demand PRS request message and the response message are LTE Positioning Protocol (LPP) messages; wherein the on-demand PRS request message is an LPP request assistance data message, and the response message is an LPP provide assistance data message. See fig. 1.
Regarding dependent claims 5 and 15, CATT further teaches wherein the response message comprises at least one of third indication information or fourth indication information; wherein the third indication information is configured to indicate that the LMF device rejects the on-demand PRS request from the terminal, and the fourth indication information is configured to indicate a reason why the LMF device rejects the on-demand PRS request from the terminal. See page 2, item #7 to page 3, item #9.
Regarding dependent claims 7 and 18 , CATT further teaches wherein the response message comprises at least one of: a target duration or a target cell identifier; wherein the target duration is configured to indicate a minimum interval duration for the terminal to resend the on-demand PRS request, and the target cell identifier is an identifier of a target cell for the LMF device always rejecting the on-demand PRS request from the terminal. See Proposals 3 and 4 on page 4.
Regarding dependent claim 19, CATT further teaches at least one of: resending the on-demand PRS request to the LMF device at an interval of at least the target duration after receiving the response message; or, stopping sending the on-demand PRS request in response to determining that the terminal is located in the target cell. See Proposals 3 and 4 on page 4.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 11-14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CATT (Document entitled: “Further discussion on on-demand PRS”; art cited by applicant) in view of Rao et al (US 2024/0015686), Hasegawa et al (US 2024/0187903) or VIVO (Document entitled: “Discussion on potential positioning enhancements”; art cited by applicant).
Regarding dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 11-14, 16 and 17, CATT teaches all subject matter claimed except to further teach the response message comprises a second PRS configuration information (claims 3, 6, 8, 11 and 12) or a third PRS configuration information (claims 4, 13, 14, 16 and 17). However, CATT further teaches the network provides what can be on the on-demand request to the UE in its response and provides available assistant data to the UE after the first PRS configuration information is not accepted (see page 3). Furthermore, Rao, Hasegawa or VIVO, from the same field of endeavor, teaches changing or adjusting the PRS configuration information (second, third, fourth and so on) when the first PRS configuration information request is not accepted. See Rao: [0333] and [0334]; Hasegawa: [0394] and [0508]; or VIVO: section 6.2.1. VIVO further teaches restoring the previous PRS configuration (“PRS configuration information that has been obtained before the terminal sends the on-demand PRS request message” as recited in claims 4, 6, 13 and 16). 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 the invention of CATT by employing the teachings as taught by Rao, Hasegawa or VIVO so as to modify the PRS configuration information to a valid PRS configuration to satisfy its validity condition(s) (Hasegawa: [0509]).
Conclusion
Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References Fischer et al (US 2022/0404452), Manolakos et al (US 2023/00336299) and You et al (US 2023/0362869) are cited because they are pertinent to the method and apparatus for requesting on-demand PRS.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON NGUYEN VO whose telephone number is (571) 272-3018. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 9:00 to 6:30PM.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kenneth N Vanderpuye, can be reached on 571-272-3078. 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.
/DON N VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634