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 Amendment
Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 05/18/2026 have been fully considered.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 16-18, 20-25, 27, and 29-30 have been amended. No New Matter was noticed.
Claims 1-30 are pending.
The amendment amends independent claims 1, 17, 29, and 30 to recite, inter alia, that each subsampling configuration of the plurality of subsampling configurations comprises “at least one of an application of a transform, a truncation of an output of the transform, or a selection of a measurement based on at least one of a value of the measurement, a signal processing entity associated with the measurement, or a path associated with the measurement.” The amendment also makes conforming changes to various dependent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks, pp. 14–16) that Ryan fails to disclose “select a subsampling configuration from a plurality of subsampling configurations, wherein each subsampling configuration of the plurality of subsampling configurations comprises at least one of an application of a transform, a truncation of an output of the transform, or a selection of a measurement based on at least one of a value of the measurement, a signal processing entity associated with the measurement, or a path associated with the measurement,” as recited in amended independent claim 1. Applicant contends that Ryan’s mechanism of determining a number of PRS samples and stopping receipt/processing of PRS amounts to nothing more than decreasing a count of measurements, and that such a decrease is not any of the three enumerated types of subsampling configuration.
Applicant’s characterization of Ryan as merely “decreasing the number of measurements” is an incomplete reading of the reference. While Ryan [0053] does disclose stopping receipt/processing of PRS after a target accuracy is satisfied, Ryan further discloses in [0060] that “the first device 110-1 may update the number of PRS samples based on variance of the PRS measurements which have been performed” (emphasis added). Ryan [0060] elaborates that “the first device 110-1 can obtain the first time of arrival (TOA) estimation based on the first PRS and obtain the second TOA estimation based on the second PRS. In this case, the first device 110-1 can compare the first TOA estimation and the second TOA estimation. If the TOA has converged based on the first TOA estimation and the second TOA estimation, the first device 110-1 may stop the PRS measurement and return the TOA.” Ryan’s device is thus evaluating the values of individual measurements (TOA estimations) and making a selection decision—retaining or discarding subsequent measurements—based directly on those measurement values. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, this constitutes a selection of a measurement based on at least one of a value of the measurement. The device selects which measurement results to retain (and at what point to stop measuring) based on the actual measured TOA values and their convergence, which are themselves “values of the measurement.” The amended claim language requires “at least one of” the three enumerated subsampling configuration types, and this third prong—selection based on a value of the measurement—is met.
Ryan’s per-TRP/beam differentiation further reads on a “selection of a measurement based on … a signal processing entity associated with the measurement.” Ryan discloses that channel metrics are determined on a per-TRP/beam basis ([0047], [0059], [0061-0062]), and that the device “prioritize[s] certain TRP/beams in certain MG instances” ([0062]). The device selectively processes measurements from different TRPs and beams, deciding which TRP/beam-associated measurements to prioritize and which to stop processing ([0061]: “stop processing PRS from the TRP/beam. Blocks 410-450 can be repeated for all TRPs or all beams of one TRP”). Each TRP is a signal processing entity that transmits positioning reference signals, and the measurements are associated with and differentiated by these entities. Ryan’s mechanism of selecting which TRP/beam measurements to retain and which to discontinue based on per-entity channel metrics constitutes a “selection of a measurement based on … a signal processing entity associated with the measurement.”
With respect to the “plurality of subsampling configurations,” Ryan’s Table 1 ([0044]) discloses mapping information containing multiple rows, each row specifying a different combination of target accuracy, channel conditions (e.g., SINR, LoS status), and a corresponding minimum number of PRS samples. Each such entry corresponds to a distinct configuration governing how measurements are subsampled. For example, Ryan [0051] discloses that the device determines a number of PRS samples of 2 for TRP 130-1 (SINR = 0 dB, target accuracy ±10 ns) and a number of PRS samples of 4 for TRP 130-2 (SINR = -3 dB, target accuracy ±10 ns). These are distinct subsampling configurations selected from the plurality reflected in Table 1. Taken together with the TOA convergence/variance-based selection described in [0060] and the per-TRP/beam prioritization described in [0061-0062], each such configuration comprises “at least one of … a selection of a measurement based on at least one of a value of the measurement [or] a signal processing entity associated with the measurement.”
PNG
media_image1.png
484
1260
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues (Remarks, p. 16) that “Ryan does not calculate a subset of measurements of the measured set of positioning signals by stopping its receipt/processing of PRS.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, Ryan [0060] discloses that when the TOA has converged after the second PRS measurement out of an expected four, the device “may stop the PRS measurement and return the TOA” and “update the number of PRS samples from 4 to 2.” In this embodiment, the device receives and measures multiple positioning signals, evaluates the measured TOA values, determines convergence, and produces a subset of measurement results (i.e., the converged TOA based on 2 measurements rather than all 4). This constitutes calculating a subset of measurements of the measured set of positioning signals based on the selected subsampling configuration, because the subset of retained measurement results (the converged TOA pair) is calculated by application of the variance/convergence criterion—which is itself part of the subsampling configuration. The measurements are first taken, then evaluated against the convergence criterion, and the retained subset is output as the result. The claim does not require that the “subset” be derived exclusively through post-processing of a complete measurement set; under BRI, a process that measures signals, evaluates measurement values against a selection criterion, and produces a subset of the measured results satisfies this limitation.
Applicant asserts that “ETSI 5G fails to remedy the above defects” and that “[t]he Office fails to allege, and Applicant is unable to discern, how ETSI 5G discloses the above-referenced limitations.” To the extent the above discussion of Ryan is found insufficient, the Examiner notes that ETSI 5G (3GPP TS 38.305) provides the framework within which Ryan’s PRS measurements operate. ETSI 5G discloses the positioning measurement procedures including OTDOA positioning based on RSTD measurements from multiple E-UTRA TPs (8.2.1), E-CID positioning involving RSRP-based and AoA-based measurements (8.3.1), and the mechanisms by which UEs report selected positioning measurements to an LMF via LPP messages (8.2.3.3, 8.3.3.3). The UE obtains measurements from candidate TPs identified in assistance data from the LMF (8.2.2.1) and reports measurement results for a list of measured TPs (8.2.2.3, Table 8.2.2.3-1). The selection of which TPs to measure and report—from among the candidates provided by the LMF—is inherently a “selection of a measurement based on … a signal processing entity associated with the measurement” (i.e., the TP/TRP). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply Ryan’s per-TRP sample-count optimization within the TS 38.305 measurement framework, as both references are directed to UE positioning measurement procedures in NR/NG-RAN systems, and combining them yields the predictable result of power-efficient positioning measurements within the standardized reporting framework.
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding dependent claims 2-16 and 18-28, Applicant argues (Remarks, p. 16) that dependent claims 2-16 and 18-28 are allowable based on their dependence on an independent claim and the additional elements recited therein. As set forth above and in the updated rejection below, the independent claims are not allowable. Furthermore, no separate arguments have been presented for the patentability of the dependent claims apart from their dependence on the independent claims.
For the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection of claims 1-30 is maintained, with updated mappings as set forth below to address the amended claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 depends from claim 4 and is amended to recite “wherein, to receive the plurality of subsampling configurations, the at least one processor is configured to: receive a long-term evolution (LTE) positioning protocol (LPP) message or a new radio positioning protocol (NRPP) message comprising the plurality of subsampling configurations.” As amended, claim 4 now recites “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive a first indicator of the plurality of subsampling configurations,” not “receive the plurality of subsampling configurations.” Claim 10’s reference to receiving “the plurality of subsampling configurations” therefore lacks antecedent basis in claim 4. It is noted that Applicant made the parallel correction in claim 20 but did not make it here.
Claim 27 recites “a sixth subsampling configuration to select a fourth subset of samples from the set of positioning signal measurements based on a second output of a super resolution calculation.” The amendment changed “an output” to “a second output.” Neither claim 27 nor any claim from which it depends recites a “first output” of a super resolution calculation. The Specification discloses only “sub-selecting a set of outputs of a super resolution approach” ([0150]) without a first/second distinction. Because no first output is recited, it cannot be determined whether “a second output” requires two distinguishable outputs or is merely a label. The metes and bounds are unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-16 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This rejection is necessitated by Applicant’s amendment. The pre-amendment claims did not recite the mathematical operations underlying the subsampling; they were described only in the Specification. The amendment incorporated those operations directly into the claims.
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claims 1-16: apparatus (machine). Claim 29: method (process). Both are statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One – Does the claim recite a judicial exception
Under the framework of Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), and as set forth in MPEP §§ 2106.04 and 2106.04(a)(2), the independent claims 1, 10, and 19 each recite subject matter that is directed to mathematical concepts - specifically mathematical relationships and mathematical operations constituting a judicial exception (abstract idea).
Claim 1 is treated as representative. Claim 29 recites limitations parallel to claim 1 in method form and does not differ materially for eligibility purposes; claim 29 is therefore grouped with claim 1. Claim 1 recites the following limitations, which set forth an abstract idea:
select a subsampling configuration from a plurality of subsampling configurations,
wherein each subsampling configuration of the plurality of subsampling configurations comprises at least one of an application of a transform, a truncation of an output of the transform, or a selection of a measurement based on at least one of a value of the measurement, a signal processing entity associated with the measurement, or a path associated with the measurement;
…
calculate a subset of measurements of the measured set of positioning signals based on the selected subsampling configuration;
The limitations reciting an application of a transform, a truncation of an output of the transform, and calculate a subset of measurements each recite a mathematical concept under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I). The Specification confirms that the recited “transform” is a mathematical operation, stating at [0125] that the wireless device “may measure a CIR based on a CFR, for example by applying an inverse fast Fourier transform (IFFT) to the CFR (i.e., CIR=IFFT (CFR))” and that the device “may subsample a CIR by applying truncation to such a CIR.” An inverse fast Fourier transform is a mathematical operation, and truncation of a numerical sequence is a mathematical operation performed on the output of that transform. The breadth of the recited genus is co-extensive with mathematics. Every subsampling species disclosed in the Specification and recited in claim 27 is a numerical operation performed on a numerical data array: truncation of a channel frequency response, truncation of a transform output, selection according to a power threshold range, selection according to a magnitude threshold range, selection of local maximum values, selection based on the output of a super resolution calculation (disclosed at [0150] as “a super resolution approach (e.g., multiple signal classification (MUSIC) or matrix pencil)”), and selection of minimum delay values. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, calculate a subset of measurements encompasses performing these mathematical operations.
The abstract idea may be summarized as: selecting a data-reduction rule, applying a mathematical transform and truncation to measurement data, and selecting measurement values according to that rule — that is, selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and outputting the results of that analysis.
Step 2A Prong One: YES, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong 2 — Does the claim integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
See MPEP § 2106.04(d). The analysis considers all claim limitations, not just those identified as the judicial exception. See August 4, 2025 USPTO Memorandum (Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101) and Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB Sept. 26, 2025, designated precedential Nov. 4, 2025).
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea are:
at least one memory; at least one processor — generic computing components (Spec. [0065-0066])
receive a set of positioning signals; measure the received set of positioning signals — data gathering
output the calculated subset of measurements to a positioning model — post-solution output
The processor and memory are invoked as tools to perform the math (§ 2106.05(f)). Receiving and measuring positioning signals is necessary data gathering (§ 2106.05(g)). Outputting data to a positioning model is insignificant post-solution activity; claim 1 requires nothing further of the model itself—training, calculating outputs, and transmitting appear only in dependent claim 2. The recitations of “wireless device,” “positioning signals,” and “positioning model” limit the abstract idea to the field of wireless positioning (§ 2106.05(h)).
Improvements consideration: (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.05(a), as revised by the Dec. 5, 2025 Ex Parte Desjardins memorandum). Two requirements must be met: (1) the specification must disclose an improvement, and (2) the claim must reflect it.
The sole advantage statement is [0063]: “the described techniques can be used to improve the accuracy and reliability of using positioning models to calculate a set of positioning outputs.” This is a bare assertion with no mechanism, metric, or comparison to prior approaches. Under revised § 2106.04(d)(1), a conclusory assertion of improvement does not establish that the claim improves technology. The Specification does identify a specific technical problem at [0061]: if the subsampling method used for training differs from the method used at inference, positioning accuracy may degrade. But claim 1 contains no limitation requiring correspondence between training-time and inference-time subsampling, no limitation associating a configuration with a model identity ([0062]), and no limitation reciting the disclosed selection criteria (delay spread, K-factor, peak width, number of paths, path order). The claim does not reflect the disclosed improvement. See Ex Parte Desjardins (contrasting: the ARP credited a specific limitation that embodied the specification’s disclosed solution to catastrophic forgetting).
Step 2A Prong Two: NO. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B — Do the additional elements amount to significantly more?
At Step 2B, the additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field, as evidenced by the following:
at least one memory and at least one processor — generic computer components, as evidenced by the Specification at [0065-0066] and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
receive a set of positioning signals and measure the received set of positioning signals — conventional UE measurement of downlink positioning reference signals, as evidenced by 3GPP TS 38.305 V15.10.0, section 8.2.2 (UE measurement of PRS from candidate TPs identified in LMF assistance data).
output the calculated subset of measurements to a positioning model — conventional reporting of UE measurements for position computation, as evidenced by 3GPP TS 38.305 V15.10.0, which describes the UE-Assisted mode in which “[t]he UE performs GNSS measurements … and sends these measurements to the LMF where the position calculation takes place.”
The signaling mechanisms recited in dependent claims 7, 9, and 10 — a long-term evolution (LTE) positioning protocol (LPP) message or a new radio positioning protocol (NRPP) message, a positioning broadcast signaling (posSIB), a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE), or downlink control information (DCI) — are likewise standardized, conventional signaling mechanisms in NG-RAN positioning, as evidenced by 3GPP TS 38.305 V15.10.0.
Considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements add nothing beyond what they add individually. Gathering measurement data, performing a mathematical calculation on it, and outputting the result is the conventional and expected order of operations, and the claim identifies no synergy arising from that ordering. Step 2B: NO.
Therefore, claims 1 and 29 are therefore ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Claims 2-16 depend from rejected independent claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan et al. (WO 2023/142051 A1) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 (5G; NG Radio Access Network (NG-RAN); Stage 2 functional specification of User Equipment (UE) positioning in NG-RAN (3GPP TS 38.305 version 15.1.0 Release 15 - 2023-07)).
Regarding Claim 1, Ryan et al. (‘051) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches:
Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches: An apparatus for wireless communication at a wireless device ([0004], Claim 1: “a first device comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code”), comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (Claim 1, [0005]: “The second device comprises at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code”) and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor is configured to ([0004], Claim 1: “A first device comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code; the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device at least to”),
Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches: select a subsampling configuration from a plurality of subsampling configurations, wherein each subsampling configuration of the plurality of subsampling configurations comprises at least one of an application of a transform, a truncation of an output of the transform, or a selection of a measurement based on at least one of a value of the measurement, a signal processing entity associated with the measurement, or a path associated with the measurement — Ryan teaches mapping information (Table 1, [0044], [0049]) containing multiple entries, each entry specifying a distinct combination of target accuracy, channel conditions, and minimum number of PRS samples. Each entry constitutes a “subsampling configuration” and the table as a whole constitutes a “plurality of subsampling configurations.” The first device selects a configuration from among this plurality based on the determined channel metrics and target accuracy ([0074]: “the first device 110-1 determines a number of PRS samples based on the channel metrics and a target accuracy of the PRS measurement”). Each such configuration comprises “a selection of a measurement based on at least one of a value of the measurement [or] a signal processing entity associated with the measurement” because: (a) Ryan [0060] teaches that the device evaluates the variance/convergence of measured TOA values to determine whether to retain or discard measurements, which is a selection based on a value of the measurement; and (b) Ryan [0054], [0059], [0061-0062] teaches per-TRP/beam measurement processing and prioritization, where measurements are selected/retained based on their associated TRP/beam (i.e., a signal processing entity associated with the measurement).
Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches: receive a set of positioning signals; measure the received set of positioning signals ([0052]: “The second device 120 can transmit 2040 a set of positioning reference signals to the first device 110-1”; [0079]: “the first device 110-1 may perform the PRS-RSRP measurement on the PRS samples. Alternatively, the first device 110-1 may perform the PRS-reference signal received path power (PRS-RSRPP) measurement on the PRS samples.”),
Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches: calculate a subset of measurements of the measured set of positioning signals based on the selected subsampling configuration ([0051]: “the first device 110-1 may determine that the number of PRS samples is 2 according to Table 1… the first device 110-1 may determine that the number of PRS samples is 4”; Claim 1: “perform the positioning reference signal measurement based on the number of positioning reference signal samples”; further, [0060] teaches that when TOA estimations have converged after a subset of PRS samples (e.g., 2 out of 4), the device “may stop the PRS measurement and return the TOA” and “update the number of PRS samples from 4 to 2.” The returned TOA based on the converged subset of measurements constitutes a “subset of measurements of the measured set of positioning signals.” This subset is calculated based on the selected subsampling configuration (i.e., the convergence/variance criterion combined with the per-TRP channel-metric-based sample count from Table 1),
Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches: output the calculated subset of measurements ([0083-0092]: “the first device 110-1 may transmit a report indicating a result of the PRS measurement”; [0092]: “the report can be transmitted to the second device 120 and then forwarded to the core network device 210”; [0063] teaches that “the first device 110-1 may transmit 2060 a report indicating a result of the PRS measurement for the TRP/beam” to the second device or core network device. Ryan [0063-0064] further disclose that “the core network device 210 can estimate 2070 the location of the first device 110-1 based on the report” and that in UE-based positioning, “the first device 110-1 may determine its location locally based on the PRS measurement.” The location estimation algorithm at the core network device or the first device itself constitutes a “positioning model” to which the measurement subset is output.).
Ryan et al. (‘051) does not explicitly teach, but 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches wherein the calculated subset of measurements is output to a positioning model (Section 5.4.4: “The LMF manages the support of different location services for target UEs, including positioning of UEs… The LMF may combine all the received results and determine a single location estimate for the target UE”; Section 8.1.2.1-1 listing assistance data transferred to UE for positioning computation).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the PRS measurement system of Ryan et al. (‘051) with the positioning model of 3GPP TS 38.305. Ryan et al. (‘051) already teaches transmitting measurement reports to network entities ([0092]), and 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches that the LMF processes such measurements for positioning. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to output measurements to a positioning model because both references are directed to the same field of wireless positioning, and the LMF is the standardized network function specifically designed to process positioning measurements and generate location estimates (Section 5.4.4). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because the 3GPP standard defines interoperable interfaces (LPP, NRPPa) for transferring positioning measurements to the LMF, and Ryan et al. (‘051) already contemplates forwarding reports to core network devices.
Regarding Claim 2, Ryan et al. (‘051) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches: wherein, to output the calculated subset of measurements, the at least one processor is configured to: transmit the calculated subset of measurements for the positioning model, the at least on processor is configured ([0095], Claim 16: “transmit to the second device a report indicating of a result of the PRS measurement”).
Ryan et al. (‘051) does not explicitly teach, but 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches: train the positioning model based on the calculated subset of measurements; or calculate a set of positioning outputs based on the calculated subset of measurements (Section 5.4.4: “The LMF may combine all the received results and determine a single location estimate for the target UE (hybrid positioning)”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ryan et al. (‘051) with 3GPP TS 38.305 for the same reasons as stated for claim 1, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 3, Ryan et al. (‘051) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches the apparatus according to claim 2.
Ryan et al. (‘051) does not explicitly teach, but 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches: transmit the calculated set of positioning outputs after the calculation of the set of positioning outputs (Section 7.2.2-1: “the NG-RAN Node transfers location related information to the server”; Figure 7.3.2-1 showing Location Response transmitted after positioning operations).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ryan et al. (‘051) with 3GPP TS 38.305. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to transmit computed positioning outputs to requesting entities because location-based services require delivery of position estimates to the requesting application or network function. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because the 3GPP standard defines established procedures for location information transfer (Section 7.2.2-1).
Regarding Claim 4, Ryan et al. (‘051) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches: receive a first indicator of the plurality of subsampling configurations before the selection of the subsampling configuration (Claim 2: “receive, from the second device, mapping information indicating a relation among numbers of positioning reference signal samples, channel metrics and accuracies for the PRS measurement”; [0040], [0067]: “the second device 120 may transmit the mapping information to the first device 110-1”),
Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches: transmit a positioning report comprising a second indicator of the selected subsampling configuration ([0083]: “the first device 110-1 may transmit a report indicating a result of the PRS measurement for the TRP/beam”).
Regarding Claim 5, Ryan et al. (‘051) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches the apparatus according to claim 4.
Ryan et al. (‘051) does not explicitly teach, but 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches: transmit a third indicator of a capability for the wireless device to calculate the subset of measurements before the reception of the first indicator of the plurality of subsampling configurations, wherein each of the plurality of subsampling configurations satisfy the capability (Section 7.1.2.5: Sequence of Procedures: “Despite the flexibility allowed by LPP, it is expected that procedures will normally occur in the following order: 1. Capability Transfer; 2. Assistance Data Transfer; 3. Location Information Transfer (measurements and/or location estimate).”; Section 7.1.2.5 explicitly establishes that the UE transmits capability information to the LMF (step 1: Capability Transfer) before the network provides assistance data including positioning configurations (step 2: Assistance Data Transfer). Figure A.3-2 illustrates this sequence with “LPP PDU: Capability indication [transaction B]” occurring before “LPP PDU: Assistance data request [transaction C]”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ryan et al. (‘051) with the capability exchange procedures of 3GPP TS 38.305. Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches that the network provides mapping information (i.e., subsampling configurations) to the device ([0067]), but does not explicitly describe a preceding capability exchange step. One of ordinary skill in the art, working within the 3GPP ecosystem as evidenced by Ryan et al’s discussion of NR positioning, would have looked to the established 3GPP procedures for implementing such positioning systems. 3GPP TS 38.305 Section 7.1.2.5 teaches that capability exchange is the expected first step before providing assistance data, and Section 8.3.3.3.1 confirms that network requests are tailored to UE-supported capabilities. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform capability exchange first because doing so ensure that the mapping information/configurations transmitted to the UE are within the UE’s capabilities, thereby avoiding wasted signaling and failed position attempts. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because capability transfer is a well-defined procedure in 3GPP standards with established message formats, and the sequential procedure (capability first, then configuration) was already the expected practice in 3GPP positioning systems at the time of the invention.
Regarding Claim 6, Ryan et al. (‘051) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches the apparatus according to claim 5.
Ryan et al. (‘051) does not explicitly teach, but 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches: receive a request for the capability before the transmission of the third indicator of the capability (Section 7.1.2.1: LMF-initiated capability transfer where LMF requests capabilities from UE; Figure 8.1.3.3.1-1 showing “LPP Request Location Information” followed by UE response).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ryan et al. (‘051) with 3GPP TS 38.305 for the same reasons as stated for claim 5, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 7, Ryan et al. (‘051) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches the apparatus according to claim 5.
Ryan et al. (‘051) does not explicitly teach, but 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches: wherein transmitting the third indicator of the capability for the wireless device to calculate the subset of measurements comprises: transmit a long-term evolution (LTE) positioning protocol (LPP) message or a new radio positioning protocol (NRPP) message comprising the third indicator of the capability for the wireless device to calculate the subset of measurements (Section 6.2.1: “The LTE Positioning Protocol (LPP) is terminated between a target device (the UE in the control-plane case) and a positioning server (the LMF)”; Section 6.3.1: “The NR Positioning Protocol A (NRPPa) carries information between the NG-RAN Node and the LMF”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ryan et al. (‘051) with the LPP/NRPPa protocols of 3GPP TS 38.305. Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches communication between a first device (terminal) and second device (network) for positioning purposes, and one of ordinary skill would have looked to standardized protocols for implementing such communication. One would have been motivated to use LPP/NRPPa because these are the established standardized protocols specifically designed for positioning information exchange in LTE and NR networks. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because LPP and NRPPa are mature protocols with defined message formats for capability exchange.
Regarding Claim 8, Ryan et al. (‘051) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches the apparatus according to claim 4.
Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches: receive a third indicator of the subsampling configuration before the selection of the subsampling configuration, wherein to select the subsampling configuration from the plurality of subsampling configurations, the at least one processor is configured to ([0080]: “the first device 110-1 may receive performance information from the second device 120”; [0091]: “the second device 120 may transmit performance information to the first device 110-1”),
Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches: select the subsampling configuration from the plurality of subsampling configurations based on the received third indicator of the subsampling configuration ([0080]: “the first device 110-1 may update the number of PRS samples based on the performance information. For example, if the second device 120 signals performance degradation, the mapping information can be updated to a more conservative set of values e.g., the minimum number of samples is increased by a fixed value.”; [0091]: “the mapping information can be updated according to the configuration given by the dynamic mapping”).
Regarding Claim 9, Ryan et al. (‘051) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches the apparatus according to claim 8.
Ryan et al. (‘051) does not explicitly teach, but 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches: wherein, to receive the third indicator of the subsampling configuration, the at least one processor is configured to: receive a positioning broadcast signaling (posSIB), a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE), or downlink control information (DCI) comprising the third indicator of the subsampling configuration (Section 6.1.2-6.1.4 describing transport mechanisms over NR-Uu and LTE-Uu interfaces for positioning information; positioning information is carried using RRC and lower layer signaling mechanisms).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use posSIB, MAC-CE, or DCI for signaling configuration indicators. Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches receiving configuration information from the network ([0080]), and one of ordinary skill would have selected an appropriate signaling mechanism based on latency requirements. One would have been motivated to use these mechanisms because posSIB provides broadcast positioning information, while DCI and MAC-CE provide low-latency dynamic signaling suitable for time-sensitive configuration updates, which are well-known signaling mechanisms in LTE/NR systems at the time of the invention. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because these are established signaling mechanisms with defined formats in 3GPP specifications.
Regarding Claim 10, Ryan et al. (‘051) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches the apparatus according to claim 4.
Ryan et al. (‘051) does not explicitly teach, but 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches: wherein, to receive the plurality of subsampling configurations, the at least one processor is configured to: receive a long-term evolution (LTE) positioning protocol (LPP) message or a new radio positioning protocol (NRPP) message comprising the plurality of subsampling configurations (Section 6.2.1: “LPP messages are carried as transparent PDUs across intermediate network interfaces… The LPP protocol is intended to enable positioning for NR and LTE”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ryan et al. (‘051) with 3GPP TS 38.305 for the same reasons as stated for claim 7, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 11, Ryan et al. (‘051) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches: receive an indicator of the subsampling configuration before the selection of the subsampling configuration, wherein to select the subsampling configuration from the plurality of subsampling configurations, the at least one processor is configured to (Claim 2: “receive, from the second device, mapping information indicating a relation among numbers of positioning reference signal samples, channel metrics and accuracies for the PRS measurement”),
Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches: select the subsampling configuration from the plurality of subsampling configurations based on the received indicator (Claim 3: “determining the number of positioning reference signal samples based on the channel metrics, the target accuracy and the mapping information”).
Regarding Claim 12, Ryan et al. (‘051) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches: select the subsampling configuration from the plurality of subsampling configurations based on a set of criteria ([0049]: “the first device 110-1 can determine the number of PRS samples based on the channel metrics, the target accuracy”; [0042]: criteria include “a line of sight (LoS) state… a signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR)… a reference signal received power (RSRP)”).
Regarding Claim 13, Ryan et al. (‘051) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches: wherein the selected subsampling configuration comprises a path selection configuration ([0062], [0082]: “the first device 110-1 may prioritize the PRS measurement within the measurement gap based on the channel metrics… prioritize certain TRP/beams in certain MG instances”),
Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches: wherein, to calculate the subset of measurements of the measured set of positioning signals based on the selected subsampling configuration, the at least one processor is configured to: select a path of a plurality of paths of the received set of positioning signals; and calculate the subset of measurements corresponding with the selected path ([0051]: “the first device 110-1 may determine that the number of PRS samples is 2… which are shown as PRS samples 310-1 and 310-2” describing selection of specific PRS samples/paths from multiple TRPs).
Regarding Claim 14, Ryan et al. (‘051) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches: wherein, to calculate the subset of measurements based on the selected subsampling configuration, the at least one processor is configured to, at least one of: select a subset of samples from the measured set of positioning signals in response to the subset of samples satisfying a power threshold range ([0042]: channel metrics include “a reference signal received power (RSRP)”; [0047], [0051]: determining number of samples based on “the SINR between the first device 110-1 and the TRP” where SINR thresholds determine sample selection).
The remaining alternatives (truncating CFR, truncating transform output, magnitude threshold range, local maximum values, super resolution calculation, minimum delay values) are not required to be taught under the claim’s “at least one of” language.
Regarding Claim 15, Ryan et al. (‘051) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches: wherein the wireless device comprises at least one of a user equipment (UE), a base station, or a transmission reception point (TRP) ([0110], Claim 17: “wherein the first device comprises a terminal device and the second device comprises a network device”; [0030]: “The network device may refer to a base station (BS)”; [00108]: “measurement, a user equipment (UE) receiving-transmitting time difference measurement”).
Regarding Claim 16, Ryan et al. (‘051) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches the apparatus according to claim 1.
Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches: further comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive, via the transceiver, the set of positioning signals ([0052]: “The second device 120 can transmit 2040 a set of positioning reference signals to the first device 110-1” -inherently requiring a transceiver for wireless reception).
Regarding amended independent claims 17, 29, and 30, claims 17, 29, and 30 recite limitations similar to or corresponding to those of claim 1 (claim 17 from a network entity perspective, claims 29 and 30 as method claims). The same analysis and prior art mappings set forth above with respect to claim 1 apply to claims 17, 29, and 30, mutatis mutandis. Ryan’s disclosure encompasses both the wireless device (first device 110-1) and network device (second device 120/core network device 210) perspectives, and the method steps corresponding to the apparatus configurations. Accordingly, claims 17, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ryan in view of ETSI 5G for the same reasons as discussed above for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18, Ryan et al. (‘051) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches the apparatus according to claim 17.
Ryan et al. (‘051) does not explicitly teach, but 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches: train a positioning model based on the set of measurements; or calculate a second set of positioning outputs using the positioning model based on the set of measurements (Section 5.4.4: “The LMF… may combine all the received results and determine a single location estimate for the target UE (hybrid positioning)”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ryan et al. (‘051) with 3GPP TS 38.305. Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches that the network entity receives measurement reports, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized the utility of processing these measurements. One would have been motivated to use received measurements for computing position estimates at the network side because this is the standard function of the LMF in 5G positioning architecture, enabling centralized position computation with access to multiple data sources. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because the LMF is specifically designed to combine measurements from different sources to determine location estimates.
Regarding Claim 19, Ryan et al. (‘051) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches the apparatus according to claim 17.
Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches: wherein the positioning report comprises a second indicator of the at least one of the plurality of subsampling configurations ([0092]: “the second device 120 receives a report indicating a result of the PRS measurement for the TRP/beam” where the report indicates which TRP/beam, i.e., which configuration, was used for measurement).
Regarding Claim 20, Ryan et al. (‘051) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches the apparatus according to claim 17.
Ryan et al. (‘051) does not explicitly teach, but 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches: receive a second indicator of a capability for a wireless device to utilize a subsampling configuration before the transmission of the indicator of the plurality of subsampling configurations, wherein each of the plurality of subsampling configurations satisfy the capability (Section 7.1.2.1: Capability Transfer Procedure where Section 7.3.2.2: “The LMF may obtain location related information from the UE and/or from the serving NG-RAN Node” including capabilities).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ryan et al. (‘051) with 3GPP TS 38.305 to receive UE capabilities before transmitting configurations. Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches transmitting configurations to devices, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized that different devices may have different capabilities. One would have been motivated to receive capabilities first to ensure that transmitted configurations are compatible with device capabilities, thereby avoiding wasted resources on unsupported configurations. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because capability exchange is a well-established procedure in 3GPP systems.
Regarding Claim 21, Ryan et al. (‘051) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches the apparatus according to claim 20.
Ryan et al. (‘051) does not explicitly teach, but 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches: transmit a request for the capability before the reception of the second indicator of the capability (Section 7.1.2 describing LMF-initiated capability transfer; Figure 7.3.2-1: step 2 showing “LPP Transaction(s)” for capability exchange initiated by LMF).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ryan et al. (‘051) with 3GPP TS 38.305 for the same reasons as stated for claim 20, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 22, Ryan et al. (‘051) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches the apparatus according to claim 20.
Ryan et al. (‘051) does not explicitly teach, but 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches: wherein, to receive the second indicator of the capability, the at least one processor is configured to: receive a long-term evolution (LTE) positioning protocol (LPP) message or a new radio positioning protocol (NRPP) message comprising the second indicator of the capability (Section 6.2.1: “The LTE Positioning Protocol (LPP) is terminated between a target device… and a positioning server”; Section 6.3.1: “The NR Positioning Protocol A (NRPPa) carries information between the NG-RAN Node and the LMF”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ryan et al. (‘051) with 3GPP TS 38.305 for the same reasons as stated for claim 7, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 23, Ryan et al. (‘051) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches the apparatus according to claim 17.
Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches: transmit a second indicator of the at least one of the plurality of subsampling configurations after the transmission of the indicator of the plurality of subsampling configurations ([0091]: “the second device 120 may transmit performance information to the first device 110-1” which is transmitted after the initial mapping information transmission at [0086]).
Regarding Claim 24, Ryan et al. (‘051) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches the apparatus according to claim 23.
Ryan et al. (‘051) does not explicitly teach, but 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches: wherein, to transmit the second indicator of the at least one of the plurality of subsampling configurations, the at least one processor is configured to: transmit a positioning broadcast signaling (posSIB), a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE), or downlink control information (DCI) comprising the second indicator (Section 6.1.2-6.1.4 describing various transport mechanisms; positioning information is carried using standard signaling mechanisms).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transmit configuration indicators using posSIB, MAC-CE, or DCI. Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches transmitting configuration updates to devices ([0091]), and one of ordinary skill would have selected an appropriate signaling mechanism. One would have been motivated to use these mechanisms because posSIB provides efficient broadcast of positioning information, while DCI and MAC-CE provide low-latency dynamic signaling suitable for time-sensitive configuration updates, all of which were well-known signaling mechanisms in LTE/NR systems at the time of the invention. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because these are established signaling mechanisms with defined formats in 3GPP specifications.
Regarding Claim 25, Ryan et al. (‘051) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches the apparatus according to claim 17.
Ryan et al. (‘051) does not explicitly teach, but 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches: further comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor, wherein, to transmit the plurality of subsampling configurations, the at least one processor is configured to: transmit, via the transceiver, a long-term evolution (LTE) positioning protocol (LPP) message or a new radio positioning protocol (NRPP) message comprising the plurality of subsampling configurations (Section 6.2.1: “LPP messages are carried as transparent PDUs across intermediate network interfaces using the appropriate protocols”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ryan et al. (‘051) with 3GPP TS 38.305 for the same reasons as stated for claim 7, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 26, Ryan et al. (‘051) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches the apparatus according to claim 17.
Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches: wherein the plurality of subsampling configurations comprises a set of path selection configurations ([0062], [0082]: “the first device 110-1 may prioritize the PRS measurement within the measurement gap based on the channel metrics… prioritize certain TRP/beams”; Table 1 showing configurations for different TRP/beam scenarios).
Regarding Claim 27, Ryan et al. (‘051) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches the apparatus according to claim 17.
Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches: wherein the plurality of subsampling configurations comprises at least one of: a third subsampling configuration to select a first subset of samples from the set of positioning signal measurements based on a power threshold range ([0042]: “the channel metrics may indicate… a reference signal received power (RSRP)”; Table 1 showing sample selection based on SINR thresholds which relate to signal power).
The remaining alternatives (truncating CFR, truncating transform output, magnitude threshold, local maximum values, super resolution, minimum delay values) are not required to be taught under the claim’s “at least one of” language.
Regarding Claim 28, Ryan et al. (‘051) in view of 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches the apparatus according to claim 17.
Ryan et al. (‘051) does not explicitly teach, but 3GPP TS 38.305 teaches: wherein the network entity comprises a location management function (LMF) (Section 5.4.4: “The LMF manages the support of different location services for target UEs, including positioning of UEs and delivery of assistance data to UEs”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the network entity of Ryan et al. (‘051) as an LMF as taught by 3GPP TS 38.305. Ryan et al. (‘051) teaches a network device that transmits mapping information and receives measurement reports ([0005], [0092]), which corresponds to the functions of an LMF. One would have been motivated to implement the network entity as an LMF because the LMF is the standardized network function responsible for managing positioning services in 5G systems, providing interoperability with standard UE implementations. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because the LMF architecture is well-defined in 3GPP specifications and designed to perform the positioning management functions taught by Ryan et al.
Regarding amended independent claims 17, 29, and 30, claims 17, 29, and 30 recite limitations similar to or corresponding to those of claim 1 (claim 17 from a network entity perspective, claims 29 and 30 as method claims). The same analysis and prior art mappings set forth above with respect to claim 1 apply to claims 17, 29, and 30, mutatis mutandis. Ryan’s disclosure encompasses both the wireless device (first device 110-1) and network device (second device 120/core network device 210) perspectives, and the method steps corresponding to the apparatus configurations. Accordingly, claims 17, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ryan in view of ETSI 5G for the same reasons as discussed above for claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 REMASH R GUYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-0115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Resha H Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/REMASH R GUYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/OLUMIDE AJIBADE AKONAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights