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 .
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.
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.
1. Claims 1, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (Moderator (Huawei), “FL summary #4 of 8.5.4 latency improvements for DL and DL+UL methods”, TSG-RAN WG1 meeting #106-e, R1-2108583) found in IDS dated 6/26/2025in view of Manolakos et al (2021/0360578) further in view of Manolakos et al (2024/0356714) or Lee et al (2025/0106662).
Regarding claims 1 and 19. D1 teaches a method and a wireless communication device, comprising: at least one processor (page 49 – UE/gNB/LMF comprise at least one processor and transmitter) configured to:
receive, via a transmitter from a wireless communication element, a first message that includes a configuration of one or more downlink positioning reference signal (DL PRS) resources (page 49, Qualcomm answer wherein the LMF decides the PRS configuration based on UE configurations); and
according to a second message requested by the wireless communication element (page 49, Qualcomm answer wherein the LMF decides the PRS configuration and the LMF sends the location request and the response time), provide, via the transmitter to the wireless communication element, a third message including a location information report derived according to measurements on the one or more DL PRS resources conducted based on the configuration (page 54, Qualcomm answer wherein the UE gets a location request to measure and report back with a very short response time).
Regarding amendment dated 5/12/2026. Applicant amends and argues prior art does not teach wherein the wireless communication device, based on configuration, forgoes measurement of the one or more DL PRS resources in a DL PRS measurement time window that are outside of a serving cell of the wireless communication device. Support for the recited claim limitation can be found in applicants application as published at 0066 – the UE may not be expected to measure DL PRS that is not transmitted from the serving cell of the UE. For instance, the UE may not be expected to measure the DL PRS that is not transmitted from a serving cell if the search window, determined by an expected RSTD value and an expected RSTD uncertainty value associated with a TRP to transmit the DL PRS, is larger than a threshold.
Manolakos ‘714 teaches UE does not expect to process DL PRS instance if, inside the PRS processing window for that PRS instance, the maximum expected receive difference between a PRS resource of the PRS instance and the PRS from the serving eNB is higher than a fraction of X. That is, if the difference between the expected receive time of a PRS resource for a PRS instance and the PRS from the serving BS is greater than a threshold, then the UE does not expect to process the PRS instance. For example, if a PRS resource of one positioning resource layer (PFL) is received at a ToA that is too far away from the received ToA of (i.e. greater than a threshold) a PRS resource of another PFL (e.g, the PRS resource of the serving BS), then the UE is not expected to measure any PRS resources of the first PFL (0169, 0208) which enables for high accurate 5G-based positioning (0004).
Lee teaches a UE may not expect to measure a PRS if no MG is configured.
Option 1: The PRS is from the serving cell and UE measurement is inside the active DL
BWP (0351, TABLE 14). There is no major issue in applying Option 1. However, since
the UE only measures and reports a PRS transmitted from the serving cell, Option 1
may lead very poor performance in terms of accuracy (0353).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify D1 in view of Manolakos to determine the maximum expected receive difference between a PRS resource of the PRS instance and the PRS from the serving eNB is higher than a threshold as taught by Manolakos ‘714 to enable the UE to determine whether or not to process DL PRS instance thereby providing for high accurate 5G-based positioning (Manolakos ‘714 at 0004) OR to employ option 1 as taught by Lee wherein the UE only measures and reports a PRS transmitted from the serving cell thereby providing for fast coarse UE location estimate while reducing positioning latency (Lee at 0050).
Regarding claims 18 and 20. D1 teaches a method and a wireless communication element (page 49 – UE/gNB/LMF comprise at least one processor and transmitter), comprising: at least one processor configured to:
send, via a transmitter to a wireless communication device, a first message that includes a configuration of one or more downlink positioning reference signal (DL PRS) resources (page 49, Qualcomm answer wherein the LMF decides the PRS configuration based on UE configurations);
; and
receive, via a receiver from the wireless communication device, according to a second message from the wireless communication element (page 49, Qualcomm answer wherein the LMF decides the PRS configuration and the LMF sends the location request and the response time), a third message including a location information report derived according to measurements on the one or more DL PRS resources conducted based on the configuration (page 54, Qualcomm answer wherein the UE gets a location request to measure and report back with a very short response time).
Regarding amendment dated 5/12/2026. Applicant amends and argues prior art does not teach wherein the wireless communication device, based on configuration, forgoes measurement of the one or more DL PRS resources in a DL PRS measurement time window that are outside of a serving cell of the wireless communication device. Support for the recited claim limitation can be found in applicants application as published at 0066 – the UE may not be expected to measure DL PRS that is not transmitted from the serving cell of the UE. For instance, the UE may not be expected to measure the DL PRS that is not transmitted from a serving cell if the search window, determined by an expected RSTD value and an expected RSTD uncertainty value associated with a TRP to transmit the DL PRS, is larger than a threshold.
Manolakos ‘714 teaches UE does not expect to process DL PRS instance if, inside the PRS processing window for that PRS instance, the maximum expected receive difference between a PRS resource of the PRS instance and the PRS from the serving eNB is higher than a fraction of X. That is, if the difference between the expected receive time of a PRS resource for a PRS instance and the PRS from the serving BS is greater than a threshold, then the UE does not expect to process the PRS instance. For example, if a PRS resource of one positioning resource layer (PFL) is received at a ToA that is too far away from the received ToA of (i.e. greater than a threshold) a PRS resource of another PFL (e.g, the PRS resource of the serving BS), then the UE is not expected to measure any PRS resources of the first PFL (0169, 0208) which enables for high accurate 5G-based positioning (0004).
Lee teaches a UE may not expect to measure a PRS if no MG is configured.
Option 1: The PRS is from the serving cell and UE measurement is inside the active DL
BWP (0351, TABLE 14). There is no major issue in applying Option 1. However, since
the UE only measures and reports a PRS transmitted from the serving cell, Option 1
may lead very poor performance in terms of accuracy (0353).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify D1 in view of Manolakos to determine the maximum expected receive difference between a PRS resource of the PRS instance and the PRS from the serving eNB is higher than a threshold as taught by Manolakos ‘714 to enable the UE to determine whether or not to process DL PRS instance thereby providing for high accurate 5G-based positioning (Manolakos ‘714 at 0004) OR to employ option 1 as taught by Lee wherein the UE only measures and reports a PRS transmitted from the serving cell thereby providing for fast coarse UE location estimate while reducing positioning latency (Lee at 0050).
2. Claims 2 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of Manolakos ‘714 or Lee further in view of Manolakos et al (2021/0360578).
Regarding claims 2 and 22. D1 in view of Manolakos ‘714 or Lee do not explicitly teach providing, by the wireless communication device to at least one of the wireless communication element, User Equipment (UE) capability information including at least one of a Type 1 DL PRS processing
However, D1 teaches UE reports N,T which are used to determine measurement periods (page 73 and page 2).
Manolakos ‘578 teaches UE has various DL PRS processing and buffering capabilities that need to be accommodated (0119) and to determine the measurement period for PRS measurements, for the purpose of DL PRS processing capability, the duration of DL PRS symbols (K) in ms within any P ms window, is determined by a Type 1 duration calculation or Type 2 duration calculation wherein Type 1 or Type 2 is reported as a UE capability (0131-0138).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify D1 in view of Manolakos ‘714 or Lee to have the UE report Type 1 and/or Type 2 capability as taught by Manolakos ‘578 in order to more accurately determine the measurement period for PRS measurements, as well as, enhancing signaling efficiencies and reducing latency (Manolakos at 0004).
5. Claims 21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of in view of Manolakos ‘714 or Lee further in view of Manolakos et al (2024/0107487).
Regarding claims 21 and 26. D1 in view of Manolakos ‘714 or Lee do not teach wherein the first message indicates that a subset of the one or more DL PRS resources are configured to be measured in a DL PRS measurement time window.
Manolakos ‘487 teaches providing the UE with PRS IDs included in the assistance data and the UE may be configured to measure a subset of the scheduled PRS resources (0117) which enhances signaling efficiencies and reduces latency (0003).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify D1 in view of Manolakos ‘714 or Lee to use PRS IDs as taught by Manolakos in order to provide per-TRP PRS configuration information to the UE thereby enhancing signaling efficiencies and reduces latency (Manolakos at 0003).
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 3, 4, 15, 23, 24, and 25 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.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 15, and 18-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
---(2023/0327833) Zou et al teaches no MG are necessary for time synchronization purpose, since the UE is only required to receive PRS of the serving cell and not required to receive PR of neighboring cells. In this case, the UE is only required to measure DL PRS within the active bandwidth party(BWTP) and with the same numerology as the active DL BWP (0065).
---(2023/0063450) Fakoorian et al teaches DL PRS resource(s) are conducted inside an active Bandwidth part (BWP) (see claims 6, 8 and 12).
7. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARRY W TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-7509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 7-5.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at 571-272-4177. 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.
/BARRY W TAYLOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights