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 § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1. Claims 1, 8, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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 6/26/2025.
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 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);
send, via the transmitter to the wireless communication device, a second message to request location information report of the wireless communication device (page 49, Qualcomm answer wherein the LMF decides the PRS configuration and the LMF sends the location request and the response time); and
receive, via a receiver from the wireless communication device, a third message including a location information report derived according to measurements on the 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 claim 8. D1 teaches wherein a wireless communication node is configured to provide information indicating whether a DL PRS measurement time window is allowed to be configured to the wireless communication device by the wireless communication element (page 26, SONY’s proposal 5 wherein serving eNB can provide the response whether the UE is allowed to perform positioning measurement (e.g., when it is needed) within certain duration of time).
Regarding claim 12. D1 teaches wherein the second message further includes at least a first response time and a second response time (page 49, Qualcomm’s answer wherein the LMF decides the PRS configuration the LMF sends the location request and the response time. So, the LMF looks at the UE capabilities, and determines how much time the UE will need after the last PRS symbol … ).
Regarding claim 17. D1 teaches receiving, by the wireless communication device from a wireless communication node, an indication that the reception of the one or more DL PRS resources is prioritized over other downlink channels or signals overlapped in time when the wireless communication device is in RRC inactive state (page 54, Qualcomm’s answer wherein PRS resources can be prioritized over other DL channels, page 59, Qualcomm’s answer at the second bullet wherein PRS prioritization over all other DL).
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.
2. Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of Manolakos et al (2021/0360578).
Regarding claim 2. D1 does 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 capability or a Type 2 DL PRS processing capability.
However, D1 teaches UE reports N,T which are used to determine measurement periods (page 73 and page 2).
Manolakos 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 to have the UE report Type 1 and/or Type 2 capability as taught by Manolakos in order to more accurately determine the measurement period for PRS measurements, as well as, enhancing signaling efficiencies and reducing latency (Manolakos at 0004).
Regarding claim 3. D1 does not teach but Manolakos teaches processing capability indicates a plurality of combinations of parameters R and P, wherein the parameter R represents a number of time units that contain the one or more DL PRS resources in a DL PRS receiving window, and the parameter P represents a length of a DL PRS processing window during which the wireless communication device is expected to process up to R ms of DL PRS resources to be received (abstract, 0006, 0008, 0010, 0012, 0121 – the UE reports the duration ‘N’ of DL PRS symbols in units of milliseconds that the UE can process every “T” ms, 0149 – UE measures one or more PRS resources during a measurement period wherein measurement is based on a number of measurement instances of the one or more PRS resources the UE is expected to process multiplied by a periodicity parameter, 0157-0164 wherein UE receives configuration of one or more PRS resources to measure during a positioning session, the one or more PRS resources having PRS periodicity Tprs and PRS occasion length Lprs, wherein the periodicity parameter is a maximum of the PRS processing window, the PRS periodicity Tprs and the measurement gap periodicity, wherein the number of measurement instances is based on the PRS occasion length Lprs, wherein the PRS occasion length Lprs is based on whether a Type 1 duration calculation or Type 2 duration calculation).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify D1 to have the UE report Type 1 and/or Type 2 capability as taught by Manolakos in order to more accurately determine the measurement period for PRS measurements, as well as, enhancing signaling efficiencies and reducing latency (Manolakos at 0004).
Regarding claim 4. D1 teaches wherein the DL PRS processing window starts after an end of a PRS receiving window (page 2, Qualcomm proposal 7 – During the second window of at least T-N msec, which starts after the end of the measurement window (e.g., PRS receiving window), referred to as “Processing Window”)..
Regarding claim 6. D1 teaches wherein the Type 2 DL PRS processing capability indicates a parameter T that represents a DL PRS computation time of the wireless communication device (page 2, Qualcomm proposal 7 – the measurement period for measuring a single sample can be equal to T according to the reported (N,T) PRS processing capabilities).
Regarding claim 7. D1 does not explicitly teach wherein a time difference (N) 7 should be not less than a value of the parameter T, the time difference N is measured from an end of a last symbol of a latest one of the DL PRS resources used for the location information report to an end of the DL PRS measurement time window L;
or wherein the Type 2 DL PRS processing capability further indicates one or more values of the parameter T, each of which is determined by the wireless communication device based on a report quantity requested by the wireless communication element.
However, D1 teaches UE reports N,T which are used to determine measurement periods (page 73 and page 2).
Manolakos 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, 0145).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify D1 to have the UE report Type 1 and/or Type 2 capability as taught by Manolakos in order to more accurately determine the measurement period for PRS measurements, as well as, enhancing signaling efficiencies and reducing latency (Manolakos at 0004).
Regarding claim 9. D1 does not explicitly teach wherein a wireless communication node is configured to provide information indicating which type of a DL PRS measurement time window is allowed to be requested by the wireless communication element to the wireless communication device.
Manolakos teaches processing capability indicates a plurality of combinations of parameters R and P, wherein the parameter R represents a number of time units that contain the one or more DL PRS resources in a DL PRS receiving window, and the parameter P represents a length of a DL PRS processing window during which the wireless communication device is expected to process up to R ms of DL PRS resources to be received (abstract, 0006, 0008, 0010, 0012, 0121 – the UE reports the duration ‘N’ of DL PRS symbols in units of milliseconds that the UE can process every “T” ms, 0149 – UE measures one or more PRS resources during a measurement period wherein measurement is based on a number of measurement instances of the one or more PRS resources the UE is expected to process multiplied by a periodicity parameter, 0157-0164 wherein UE receives configuration of one or more PRS resources to measure during a positioning session, the one or more PRS resources having PRS periodicity Tprs and PRS occasion length Lprs, wherein the periodicity parameter is a maximum of the PRS processing window, the PRS periodicity Tprs and the measurement gap periodicity, wherein the number of measurement instances is based on the PRS occasion length Lprs, wherein the PRS occasion length Lprs is based on whether a Type 1 duration calculation or Type 2 duration calculation).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify D1 to have the UE report Type 1 and/or Type 2 capability as taught by Manolakos in order to more accurately determine the measurement period for PRS measurements, as well as, enhancing signaling efficiencies and reducing latency (Manolakos at 0004).
Regarding claim 15. D1 does not explicitly teach wherein the wireless communication device, based on the configuration, is not expected to measure the one or more DL PRS resources in a DL PRS measurement time window that are not transmitted from a serving cell of the wireless communication device, and wherein a search window determined by an expected RSTD and an expected RSTD uncertainty for the one or more DL PRS resources is greater than a threshold associated with a cyclic prefix length of the serving cell.
However, D1 teaches UE reports N,T which are used to determine measurement periods (page 73 and page 2).
Manolakos 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).
Manolakos further teaches the assistance data further includes an expected RSTD value and associated uncertainty, or search window , around the expected RSTD (0090, 0134).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify D1 to have the include RSTD uncertainty as taught by Manolakos in order to more accurately determine the measurement period for PRS measurements, as well as, enhancing signaling efficiencies and reducing latency (Manolakos at 0004).
Regarding claim 16. D1 teaches wherein in the DL PRS measurement time window, the 16. measurements on the one or more DL PRS resources are conducted inside an active Bandwidth Part (BWP), and wherein the one or more DL PRS resources each share a same numerology with the active BWP (page 26 – OPPO’s proposal 1 wherein support for measuring DL PRS resources without measurement gap when DL PRS resource is within the active DL BWP and with the same numerology of the active DL BWP and from the serving cell, page 51 – Proposal 4.4-1 wherein UE measurement inside the active DL BWP with PRS having the same numerology as the active DL BWP).
3. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of Manolakos further in view of Manolakos et al (2024/0356714).
Regarding claim 5. D1 in view of Manolakos do not teach wherein the wireless communication device is not expected to receive the one or more DL PRS resources in the DL PRS processing window.
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 (0169) which enables for high accurate 5G-based positioning (0004).
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 fraction 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).
4. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of Manolakos et al (2024/0137901).
Regarding claim 10. D1 does not teach wherein the configuration of the first message indicates that an assistance data reference Transmission Reception Point (TRP) should be a TRP where one or more associated DL PRSs are transmitted from a serving cell of the wireless communication device.
Manolakos teaches various IE that may be used to configure DL PRS.
An “NR-DL-PRS-AssistanceDataPerTRP-r16” can be used to provide per-TRP PRS configuration information (0143-0146) which enhances signaling efficiencies and reduces latency (0004).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify D1 to use the IE 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 0004).
5. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of Manolakos et al (2024/0107487).
Regarding claim 11. D1 does 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 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 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).
6. Claims13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 in view of Manolakos et al (2024/0172170).
Regarding claim 13. D1 does not explicitly teach wherein the wireless communication device is configured to provide the third message including a first location information report before the first response time elapses, and wherein the first location information report only includes measurements conducted in a DL PRS measurement time window.
However, D1 teaches the LMF sends the location request and the response time (page 49, Qualcomm’s answer).
Manolakos teaches LMF sends a request for location information to the UE wherein the request includes desired accuracy of the location estimate and response time (i.e., desired latency). Note that a low latency requirement allows for a longer response time while a high latency requirement requires a shorter response time (0118, 0120-0121) which enhances signaling efficiencies and reduces latency (0004).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify D1 to include response time(s) as taught by Manolakos in order to for a longer response time for low latency requirements and a shorter response time for high latency requirements thereby enhancing signaling efficiencies and reduces latency (Manolakos at 0004).
Regarding claim 14. D1 does not explicitly teach wherein the first response time is less than the second response time, or wherein the first response time is configured for an early location information report.
However, D1 teaches the LMF sends the location request and the response time (page 49, Qualcomm’s answer).
Manolakos teaches LMF sends a request for location information to the UE wherein the request includes desired accuracy of the location estimate and response time (i.e., desired latency). Note that a low latency requirement allows for a longer response time while a high latency requirement requires a shorter response time (0118, 0120-0121) which enhances signaling efficiencies and reduces latency (0004).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify D1 to include response time(s) as taught by Manolakos in order to for a longer response time for low latency requirements and a shorter response time for high latency requirements thereby enhancing signaling efficiencies and reduces latency (Manolakos at 0004).
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
---(2023/0063450) Fakoorian et al teaches DL PRS resource(s) are conducted inside an active Bandwidth part (BWP) (see claims 6, 8 and 12).
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