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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument (REM 6/17/2026, page 8, last section):
“With regard to claims 17-20, the Examiner asserts "[c]laims 17 - 20 are given the above interpretation since independent claims 17 recites means for without sufficient structure." (e.g., Page 6 of the Office Action). The Applicant respectfully disagrees, and notes that the corresponding structure for the recited "means" is set forth in the Specification,…”.
Response:
Firstly, Applicant’s last sentence on page 9 of REM (6/17/206) states “Accordingly, the Applicant requests that claims 17-20 be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f).”. This is in contradiction to Applicant’s earlier argument. Perhaps Applicant meant “…claims 17-20 NOT be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f)”.
Secondly, CTNF (3/25/2026, page 5, paragraph labeled (C) states “the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.” i.e. the claim should have sufficient structure, not the specification for the claim NOT to be interpreted under 35USC 112(f).
Hence, the 112(f) interpretation is maintained.
Argument (REM 6/17/2026, page 10, middle):
“First, the “message" described at [0095] of WO3522 is a one-time polling message to retrieve specific information, …..
This is a one-time request for current information, and a person of ordinary skill in this art (POSITA) would not interpret this request as a 'registration' to a reporting function.
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. In WO3522 ([0095]; Fig. 4, 1st step) discloses:
“As shown in FIG. 4, The ESC sends to a network node (e.g., gNB) a message requesting the network node to report the current number of UE's performing positioning and the network node's communication traffic load.”
In the above, WO3522 merely uses the word “message” not “one-time polling message”, as Applicant has interpreted (REM 6/17/2026, page 10, middle), or a “registration message”, as Examiner has interpreted. However, the message appears to perform both functions. The purpose of the message is to find out “the current number of UE's performing positioning and the network node's communication traffic load.” The ESC then determines, which can be turned off to perform energy savings and sends another message to the NW node (Fig. 4, 4th step or 2nd left arrow) to indicate this. The 2nd left arrow message could also be interpreted as the registration message since it explicitly instructs which cells to turn off. However, the 1st left arrow in Fig. 4 initiates the whole determination process, hence it is interpreted as the registration message.
Argument (REM 6/17/2026, page 10, last paragraph):
“Second, the "set of parameters" is being interpreted as the TRPs that are likely to be turned off for energy efficiency reasons" (e.g., see Page 7 of the Office Action). However, "message" at [0095] of WO3522 is requesting "the current number of UE's performing positioning and the network node's communication traffic load." This information is not associated with a status change for the TRPs; for example, the requested information is not even TRP-specific.”
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. UE’s operate in cells. The traffic in a cell will be determined by the number of UEs in a cell and individual UE traffic. WO3522 discloses turning off cells (e.g. [0093]). Hence, by requesting the number of UE’s and traffic load, the cell traffic can be determined. If the cell traffic is too high, that cell could be turned off. Hence requesting number of UEs is directly associated with whether a TRP should be kept on or turned off.
Argument (REM 6/17/2026, page 11, 1st full paragraph):
“Moreover, for the "at least one notification" feature of independent claim 1, the Examiner cites to [0093] and [0097] of WO3522 without specific comment (e.g., see Page 7 of the Office Action). …. Given the Examiner's interpretation of the "registration message" as a one-time polling request, the "while registered to the status change notification function" could at best be interpreted as part of the signaling from the network node at FIG. 4 of WO3522 in response to the request. However, the LMF (upon which the Examiner reads the "position estimation entity") is not even involved in the signaling of FIG. 4, and there is no status change with respect to the TRP ON/OFF status being reported (again, the "set of parameters" is being interpreted as TRP power status information).”
Response: Firstly, Examiner's never interpreted the “registration message” as a one-time polling request (check CTNF 3/25/2026 to verify). Examiner never use the word “polling” in CTNF. “Registration message” as a one-time polling request is Applicant’s interpretation.
No comment was needed since [0093] explicitly stated “Alternatively, if the gNB considers that, for radio related reasons, there is a strong incentive to tum off a cell(s)/TRP(s), then it can communicate to the LMF, or via the ECS, that this cell(s)/TRP(s) should not be considered by the LMF as a candidate(s) for positioning.”
From the above, the gNB directly communicates to the LMF (or communicates via the ECS) that a TRP should be turned off. This meets the requirements of the 3rd limitation in claim 1 and the LMF is clearly involved.
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.
Claims 1 – 7, 9 – 15, 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2023073522A1 (hereafter WO3522; which has been provided in the International Search Report).
Regarding claim 1, WO3522 discloses a method of operating a network component ([[0093], network component is the gNB; Fig. 6, gNB) comprising:
transmitting, to a position estimation entity, information associated with status information for a set of parameters associated with at least one wireless network entity ([0093] discloses the gNB communicates to the LMF the TRPs that are likely to be turned off for energy efficiency reasons and therefore should not be considered for positioning; wherein the position estimation entity is the LMF, the network component is the gNB and the wireless network entities are the TRPs);
receiving a registration message that registers the network component to a status change notification function associated with the set of parameters ([0095] – [0096]; wherein the registration message is interpreted as “sends to the network node a message” in [0095]);
and transmitting, to the position estimation entity while registered to the status change notification function, at least one notification that indicates a status change to at least one parameter of the set of parameters ([0093]; [0097]).
Regarding claim 2, WO3522 discloses the network component corresponds to a gNB ([0093]), wherein the at least one wireless network entity corresponds to at least one transmission reception point (TRP) ([0093]), and wherein the position estimation entity corresponds to a location management function (LMF) ([0093]) or a user equipment (UE).
Regarding claim 3, WO3522 discloses the set of parameters comprises:
a wireless network component-specific Synchronization Signal Block (SSB) ON/OFF status, or a wireless network component-specific ON/OFF status ([0093[ discloses cells/TRP likely to be turned off; [0096] discloses similar),
or a wireless network component-specific bandwidth status,
or any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 4, WO3522 discloses the status change to the at least one parameter is associated with a transition of a respective wireless network component from a normal energy operation mode to an energy saving mode ([0093] discloses turning OFF TRP/cells, which would be the energy savings mode; when ON, would be the normal energy mode).
Regarding claim 5, WO3522 discloses:
while the respective wireless network entity is in the normal energy operating mode, the respective wireless network entity is configured to perform one or more positioning actions associated with one or more position estimation sessions of one or more user equipments (UEs) ([0093]; when all TRPs/cells are ON, this would be the normal energy mode),
and wherein, while the respective wireless network entity is in the NES mode, the respective wireless network entity is either not configured to perform the one or more positioning actions or is configured to perform the one or more positioning actions to a lesser degree ([0093] discloses TRP/cells turn off and not considered for positioning, hence “a lesser degree” since the LMF now considers fewer ON cells/TRPs for positioning).
Regarding claim 6, WO3522 discloses the status change to the at least one parameter is associated with a transition of a respective wireless network component from a network energy saving (NES) mode to a normal energy operation mode ([0168] and claim 3 disclose keeping cells activated; [0093] and [0096] disclose ranking to turn off cells, hence some cells which were originally OFF may now be ranked high and turned ON due to a new ranking).
Claim 7 is similarly analyzed as claim 5.
Claim 9 is similarly analyzed as claim 1, with claim 9 reciting equivalent apparatus limitations. Memory, processor, transceiver are disclosed by WO3522 (Fig. 13, elements 1304, 1302, 1306).
Claim 10 is similarly analyzed as claim 2.
Claim 11 is similarly analyzed as claim 3.
Claim 12 is similarly analyzed as claim 4.
Claim 13 is similarly analyzed as claim 5.
Claim 14 is similarly analyzed as claim 6.
Claim 15 is similarly analyzed as claim 7.
Claim 17 is similarly analyzed as claim 1.
Claim 18 is similarly analyzed as claim 2.
Claim 19 is similarly analyzed as claim 3.
Claim 20 is similarly analyzed as claim 4.
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.
Claims 8, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
WO2023073522A1 (hereafter WO3522; which has been provided in the International Search Report).
Regarding claim 8, WO3522 does not explicitly disclose receiving a deregistration message that deregisters the network component from the status change notification function.
However, this is obvious to try and an obvious variation of what WO3522 discloses (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E & F)).
Once TRPs/cells are selected to be either ON or OFF (as per [0093], [0096]), other network elements will have to be informed of the decision. Hence, sending a deregistration message is obvious to do.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use a deregistration message because this would enable other network elements to know the status of TRPS/cells.
Claim 16 is similarly analyzed as claim 8.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
The following patents/publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to status changing for positioning by turning ON/OFF network elements for energy conservation:
Wang et al. (US 20260019879 A1) discloses Radio Access Network Architecture and Terminal Apparatus.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is (571)272-1043. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/ADOLF DSOUZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights