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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant's communication filed on 05/20/2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1 – 20 are currently pending in the instant application.
Claim Interpretation
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
3. The claim (claim 20) in this application is given its broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 20 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: In specification, transceivers are connected to one or more antennas and provide means for communicating (e.g., means for transmitting, means for receiving, means for measuring, means for tuning, means for refraining from transmitting, etc.) with other network nodes. If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
6. Claims 1 – 5, 8 – 9, and 12 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer et al. (hereinafter “Fischer”) (WO 2023/009938 A1) in view of Akkarakaran et al. (hereinafter “Akkarakaran”) (Pub # US 2022/0240216 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 20, Fischer discloses a user equipment (UE) (see 302 in FIG. 3A or UE 204 in FIG.8A), comprising:
one or more memories (340 in FIG. 3A);
one or more transceivers (310/320 in FIG. 3A); and
one or more processors (332 in FIG. 3A) communicatively coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more transceivers, the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to:
transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to a location server (see location server 172 in FIG. 1, e.g., a location management function (LMF) 270 in FIG. 8A), a first positioning request of the UE based on a first positioning procedure involving at least a serving cell (i.e., a serving gNB 222 in FIG. 8A, see stage 1a, 1b in FIG. 8A) of the UE (see stage 2 in FIG. 8A, [0152], [0157], [0158], [0168] for positioning request of the UE);
receive, via the one or more transceivers, from the location server, an error message indicating that the position of the UE is not available (see stage 3 in FIG. 8A, [0159] for the LMF is currently not able to fulfil the position request of the UE and includes an error indication together with a “reattempt time” in the message sent to the UE ); and
transmitting, to the location server, after expiration of at least a threshold period of time, a further positioning request to obtain the position of the UE based on a subsequent positioning procedure involving at least the serving cell of the UE, wherein the threshold period of time is based on occurrence of one or more conditions (see stage 4 in FIG. 8A, [0160] for after the “reattempt time” occurs, the UE repeat positioning request to the LMF as in stage 2).
Fischer teaches that the LPP Request Assistance Data message (e.g., at stages 2 and 4 of FIG. 8A) include a request for on-demand PRS for one or more positioning methods that require PRS (e.g., DL-TDOA, DL-AoD, or multi-RTT), thus it is obvious that positioning request to obtain a position of the UE. If this is in question, using Akkarakaran as below.
In an analogous art, Akkarakaran discloses the UE sends positioning request to obtain a position of the UE (see Akkarakaran, [0042], [0103], [0108], [0118] for the UE sends positioning request to an LMF and the LMF determines the position of the UE and then transmits the position to the UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date the invention was made, to modify the invention of Fischer, and have the UE sends positioning request to obtain a position of the UE such that geographical position of the UE often is determined in order to provide and improve communications between the base stations and the UE, as discussed by Akkarakaran (see Akkarakaran, [0081]).
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Fischer in view of Akkarakaran disclose wherein the error message includes one or more error reasons indicating: the serving cell of the UE was not found in a base station almanac (BSA) available to the location server, an operating frequency channel of the serving cell of the UE is not available in the BSA, an operating frequency of the serving cell of the UE is not available in the BSA, a network operator of the serving cell of the UE is not available in the BSA, no BSA is available for a region including the serving cell of the UE, or any combination thereof (see Fischer, [0155], [0158], [0159] for the LMF is currently not able to fulfil the request, i.e., PRS parameters are requested to change (which may include a change to PRS bandwidth, a change of PRS positioning occasions, a change of PRS beams etc.) may not be available when a network is under heavy load but available at other times, and see Akkarakaran, [0097] for BSA includes geographical locations of gNBs only include a subset of the overall network of gNBs, i.e., only gNBs that can communicate with or are in communication with a UE). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date the invention was made, and have a network operator of the serving cell of the UE is not available in the BSA such that positioning of the UE is determined when the network is available after the “reattempt time” occurs.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Fischer in view of Akkarakaran disclose wherein the one or more conditions comprise: a change in serving cell of the UE, a change in an operating frequency channel of the UE, a change in an operating frequency of the UE, a change in network operator of the UE, an expiration of a timer (see Fischer, [0160] for after the “reattempt time” occurs), or any combination thereof.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Fischer in view of Akkarakaran disclose wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to: receive, via the one or more transceivers, from the location server, one or more backoff rules for refraining from transmitting further positioning requests for at least the threshold period of time, wherein the one or more backoff rules indicate the one or more conditions; wherein: the one or more backoff rules are specific to different types of positioning methods, or the one or more backoff rules are common to different types of positioning methods (see Fischer, FIG. 9, [0171] – [0174], [0180] – [0182] for the LMF provides different reattempt timer values to the UE for different positioning method).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Fischer in view of Akkarakaran disclose wherein the one or more conditions comprise: an expiration of a timer indicating that a previous position fix of the UE is valid, a positioning uncertainty of the previous position fix of the UE being greater than a threshold, or any combination thereof; wherein the positioning uncertainty of the previous position fix of the UE is based on a positioning uncertainty propagation model (see Fischer, [0104] – [0107] for location estimate (i.e., position fix) include an expected error or uncertainty by including an area or volume within which the location is expected to be included with some specified or default level of confidence, and position accuracy based on some models, also see FIG. 4, [0099]).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Fischer in view of Akkarakaran disclose wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to: transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to the location server, before expiration of the threshold period of time, a second positioning request to obtain the position of the UE based on a positioning procedure involving at least a different cell (i.e., neighboring cell) than the serving cell of the UE (see Fischer, FIG. 9, [0168], [0170] – [0175], [0182]); wherein the different cell operates at a different operating frequency than an operating frequency of the serving cell of the UE (see Fischer, FIG. 4, [0040], [0054], [0104], [0158], [0170] for FR1 and FR2).
Regarding claim 14, Fischer in view of Akkarakaran disclose wherein a signal strength of the different cell is within a threshold of a signal strength of the serving cell of the UE (see Fischer, [0100], [0107], [0185] for E-CID positioning method is based on radio resource management (RRM) measurements, the UE reports the serving cell ID, the timing advance (TA), and the identifiers, estimated timing, and signal strength of detected neighbor base stations with a threshold for the measurement quality, and see Akkarakaran, [0097], [0103], [0113] for BSA only include a subset of the overall network of gNBs, i.e., the geographical locations of gNBs may only include neighbor gNBs or only gNBs that can communicate with or are in communication with a UE).
Regarding claim 15, Fischer in view of Akkarakaran disclose wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to: transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to the location server, before expiration of the threshold period of time, a second positioning request to obtain the position of the UE based on a positioning procedure for a different subscription of the UE than a subscription of the UE for which the first positioning request is transmitted (see Fischer, FIG. 9, [0109], [0187] for a “premium” UE can be given a higher retry value than a RedCap UE).
Regarding claim 16, Fischer in view of Akkarakaran disclose wherein the first positioning procedure is: an enhanced cell identifier (E-CID) positioning procedure (see Fischer, [0116], [0164]), an over-the-top (OTT)-based positioning procedure, or a wireless local area network (WLAN)-based positioning procedure.
7. Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer et al. (hereinafter “Fischer”) (WO 2023/009938 A1) in view of Akkarakaran et al. (hereinafter “Akkarakaran”) (Pub # US 2022/0240216 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”) (Pub # US 2025/0365645 A1) .
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Fischer in view of Akkarakaran disclose wherein the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, are further configured to: receive, via the one or more transceivers, a broadcast of one or more system information blocks (see Fischer, stage 1a in FIG. 8A, [0133], [0136] – [0138], [0157], [0158] for posSIBs, multiple PRS configurations that can be requested on-demand, and a time duration for how long the (modified) PRS configuration is required at the UE).
Fischer in view of Akkarakaran do not disclose specifically that wherein the one or more system information blocks include positioning barring information; wherein the positioning barring information includes the one or more conditions.
In an analogous art, Kim teaches that wherein the one or more system information blocks include positioning barring information; wherein the positioning barring information includes the one or more conditions (see Kim, [0215], [0216], [0219], [0220] for SIB1 including field cellBarred, see [0248] for barring of a cell is triggered by the condition).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date the invention was made, to modify the invention of Fischer/ Akkarakaran, and have the one or more system information blocks include positioning barring information; wherein the positioning barring information includes the one or more conditions such that preventing from sending initial access messages for load control reasons such as efficiently distribute the network load, as discussed by Kim (see Kim, [0005], [0017]).
8. Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer et al. (hereinafter “Fischer”) (WO 2023/009938 A1) in view of Akkarakaran et al. (hereinafter “Akkarakaran”) (Pub # US 2022/0240216 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kumar et al. (hereinafter “Kumar”) (Pub # US 2022/0361141 A1) .
Fischer in view of Akkarakaran do not disclose specifically that wherein the positioning uncertainty propagation model is: a linear model, a quadratic model, a linear function, or a non-linear function, wherein the positioning uncertainty propagation model is based on a motion classification of the UE.
Kumar teaches that the positioning uncertainty propagation model is: a linear model, a quadratic model, a linear function, or a non-linear function, wherein the positioning uncertainty propagation model is based on a motion classification of the UE (see Kumar, [0053] – [0055], [0061] for the UE includes an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) detects a linear acceleration and a speed of rotation of the UE to provide indications of uncertainty and/or error in the determined position and/or motion of the UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date the invention was made, to modify the invention of Fischer/ Akkarakaran, and have the positioning uncertainty propagation model is: a linear model, wherein the positioning uncertainty propagation model is based on a motion classification of the UE thereby provides uncertainty and/or error in the determined position of the UE, as discussed by Kumar (see Kumar, [0061]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONG-THUY THI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM - 6PM (IFP).
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, ANTHONY ADDY can be reached at (571)272-7795. 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.
/MONG-THUY T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights