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 7/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been overcome.
Regarding arguments provided that “Wakabayashi, Edge, Lee, and Gum” are each commonly owned by applicant, the current references of Wakabayashi and Lee have assignees of Sony and LG Electronics, respectively. The current application’s assignee is Qualcomm, so it is unclear how the argument of same assignee applies to overcome the 103 rejections. The rejections based on Edge and Gum have been withdrawn due to the same assignee being present. Furthermore, the statement “provided by applicant” refers to the fact that the references were submitted in IDS forms provided by applicant. This statement is not germane to showing assignment of a prior art reference, and it is unclear how this reflects on overcoming a reference owned by the same assignee.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 9-12, 14-16, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi in view of Hong (2024/0114438).
Regarding claim 1, Wakabayashi discloses a method performed by a user equipment for generating and transmitting a capability report to a location server (para 57-58, UE-assistance positioning procedure, in particular a typical LPP procedure; UE sends the UE capability which indicates the supported positioning method to a location server), comprising: identifying a first country in which the user equipment is camped (para 211 – a UE can determine its current operation country using the MCC), identifying, based at least in part on the identified first country, a first GNSS that is preferred for use by the user equipment (para 210 and 212, "Some GNSSs are supported in a specific region (these are known as regional navigation satellite system (RNSS)). The UE may therefore only provide capability information of RNSS (where applicable) when located in a region in which that RNSS is supported. For example, QZSS is supported only in Japan and other South/East Asian countries and Australia. QZSS will therefore only be identified in position capability information transmitted by the UE when that UE is located in one of these countries"; "If the UE, based on its current operating country, knows that a certain RNSS is not supported, then information indicating such RNSS support may be omitted from the positioning c"). Wakabayashi discloses generating the capability report, including an indication of preference by the user equipment for use of the first GNSS (para 212 – information (a bit) indicating the QZSS bit omissible from the capability information transmitted by the UE); and transmitting the capability report to the location server in a control plane call flow according to a LPP (para 190 – LPP indicates the UE sends all the related positioning capability information to the location server, via the base station). Wakabayashi discloses that it can receive multiple GNSS types and stores a default value (para 222-223) but doesn’t explicitly disclose the indicating a preference of one GNSS over another available for use in a country.
However, Hong teaches in an analogous art, the use of preferences of a particular GNSS over another GNSS available for use in a country (Para 62,66 as well as para 121-124, based on the location, a preferred GNSS is selected for use out of multiple GNSS). Also note para 86, priority. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a particular preference in order to reduce the time to select a particular provider.
Regarding claim 10, Wakabayashi discloses a user equipment configured to generate and transmit a capability report to a location server (para 57-58, UE-assistance positioning procedure, in particular a typical LPP procedure; UE sends the UE capability which indicates the supported positioning method to a location server), comprising one or more transmitters (para 27 202), one or memories (para 27 – controller comprises various subunits which configures functions of controller 203) ; and one or more processors (para 27 0 203) coupled to the memory and transmitters; wherein the one or more processors are configured to: identify a first country in which the user equipment is camped (para 211 – a UE can determine its current operation country using the MCC), identify, based at least in part on the identified first country, a first GNSS that is preferred for use by the user equipment (para 210 and 212, "Some GNSSs are supported in a specific region (these are known as regional navigation satellite system (RNSS)). The UE may therefore only provide capability information of RNSS (where applicable) when located in a region in which that RNSS is supported. For example, QZSS is supported only in Japan and other South/East Asian countries and Australia. QZSS will therefore only be identified in position capability information transmitted by the UE when that UE is located in one of these countries"; "If the UE, based on its current operating country, knows that a certain RNSS is not supported, then information indicating such RNSS support may be omitted from the positioning c"). Wakabayashi further disclose s generate the capability report, including an indication of preference by the user equipment for use of the first GNSS (para 212 – information (a bit) indicating the QZSS bit omissible from the capability information transmitted by the UE); and transmit the capability report to the location server in a control plane call flow according to a LPP (para 190 – LPP indicates the UE sends all the related positioning capability information to the location server, via the base station). Wakabayashi discloses that it can receive multiple GNSS types and stores a default value (para 222-223) but doesn’t explicitly disclose the indicating a preference of one GNSS over another available for use in a country.
However, Hong teaches in an analogous art, the use of preferences of a particular GNSS over another GNSS available for use in a country (Para 62,66 as well as para 121-124, based on the location, a preferred GNSS is selected for use out of multiple GNSS). Also note para 86, priority. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a particular preference in order to reduce the time to select a particular provider.
Regarding claim 15, Wakabayashi disclose a location server for providing location assistance data to one or more user equipment (Figure 2 – 306) comprising one or more transmitters (para 29 – network interface 209), one or memories (para 29 – storage medium 211) ; and one or more processors (para 29 - 210) coupled to the memory and transmitters; wherein the one or more processors are configured to: identify a first country in which the user equipment is camped (para 211 – a UE can determine its current operation country using the MCC), identify, based at least in part on the identified first country, a first GNSS that is preferred for use by the user equipment (para 210 and 212, "Some GNSSs are supported in a specific region (these are known as regional navigation satellite system (RNSS)). The UE may therefore only provide capability information of RNSS (where applicable) when located in a region in which that RNSS is supported. For example, QZSS is supported only in Japan and other South/East Asian countries and Australia. QZSS will therefore only be identified in position capability information transmitted by the UE when that UE is located in one of these countries"; "If the UE, based on its current operating country, knows that a certain RNSS is not supported, then information indicating such RNSS support may be omitted from the positioning c"). Wakabayashi further disclose s generate the capability report, including an indication of preference by the user equipment for use of the first GNSS (para 212 – information (a bit) indicating the QZSS bit omissible from the capability information transmitted by the UE); and transmit the capability report to the location server in a control plane call flow according to a LPP (para 190 – LPP indicates the UE sends all the related positioning capability information to the location server, via the base station). Wakabayashi discloses that it can receive multiple GNSS types and stores a default value (para 222-223) but doesn’t explicitly disclose the indicating a preference of one GNSS over another available for use in a country.
However, Hong teaches in an analogous art, the use of preferences of a particular GNSS over another GNSS available for use in a country (Para 62,66 as well as para 121-124, based on the location, a preferred GNSS is selected for use out of multiple GNSS). Also note, para 86, priority. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a particular preference in order to reduce the time to select a particular provider.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Wakabayashi discloses the capability report further includes the mobile country code MCC (para 211) associated with the first country the user equipment is camped. In particular, note para 191-198 which state that the country code is used to help the compact bitmap which is part of message3 (capability report).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Wakabayashi discloses the user equipment (terminal 104) is a mobile phone (para 24). Wakabayashi fails to disclose the capability report including a mobile network code or PLMN code associated with the mobile phone. However, Hong teaches in an analogous art, the use of mobile network codes/PLMN codes associated with a mobile phone in a capability message (para 59 and 66–includes MCC or PLMN identification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include MNC/PLMN codes in order to properly detect a location of a device.
Regarding claims 5, 7, 9, 14, 16, 20 Wakabayashi fails to disclose the user equipment is configured to use a first GNSS and eliminate use of another GNSS and evaluating a compatibility for use by the mobile phone of at least one other GNSS. However Hong teaches in an analogous art, the use of a preferred GNSS which can be evaluated using compatibility (para 126 or 131 selecting a more suitable PLMN, which eliminates a GNSS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include multiple positioning methods (i.e. GNSS) in order to allow for proper signaling of information.
Regarding claim 18, Wakabayashi does not explicitly disclose a first and second GNSS are available to use in first country in which a user equipment is camped. However, Hong further teaches that a first and second GNSS are available to use in first country in which a user equipment is camped (para 121-124, camping on a cell). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include multiple GNSS in order to provide alternate communication connectivity depending on the user terminal.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakavbayashi and Hong as applied to claim 3/12 above, and further in view of Lee (2015/0301187, provided by applicant).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, the combination of Wakabayashi and Hong fail to disclose the PLMN code being stored in a Sim card in the mobile phone. However, Lee teaches that it is known in the art to include PLMN codes in a SIM card (para 73). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include PLMN codes in a SIM card in order to store identification data in a user device for further redundancy.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi and Hong as applied to claim 7/17 above, and further in view of Bench (11876283).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, the combination of Wakabayashi and Hong disclose GNSS frequencies in L1 (para 71 and 121, reception of L1 signals via GNSS, Wakabayashi). The combination does not disclose the use of GNSS operators operating in L1 upper and lower bands of frequencies. However, Bench teaches that GNSS receivers can operate in both an L1 upper band and L1 lower band of frequencies (para 23). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the L1 frequency bands in order to provide GNSS coverage across all types of constellations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 17 allowed.
Conclusion
8. 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 WILLIAM GEORGE TROST IV whose telephone number is (571)272-7872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7a-4p, Fridays 7a-2p.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
WILLIAM GEORGE TROST IV
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2641
/WILLIAM G TROST IV/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights