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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the pending claims, applicant argues that Pan fails to teach “receive, from a first network element, an indication that a sounding reference signal resource for positioning will be used for uplink and downlink plus uplink positioning”. Examiner respectfully traverses this argument.
Paragraphs 61, 63 and 144 of Pan all recite an LMF requesting a UE to report SRS positioning measurements associated with at least one of UL-TDOA measurements and Multi-RTT measurements. Multi-RTT measurements comprise both an uplink and downlink component, and it is the examiner’s belief that Applicant’s own Specification specifies multi-RTT measurements for the claimed “downlink plus uplink” measurements (see page 11, lines 23-33).
Applicant further argues that Manolakos fails to teach “inform[ing] the first network element or the second network element that the apparatus will report the user equipment transmit timing error group association to the first network element or to the second network element”.
As noted in the prior Office Action, Vivo teaches the UE reporting the UE Tx TEG indication (i.e. the actual UE Tx TEG information) either directly or indirectly to the network (see page 6). Manolakos teaches (see paragraphs 128 and 141 and figure 5) a UE providing capability information associated with said direct or indirect reporting to said network. Such capability information would logically precede the actual reporting of this information and is believed to sufficiently map to the claimed “inform[ing] the first network element or the second network element that the apparatus will report the user equipment transmit timing error group association to the first network element or to the second network element”.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant submitted NPL titled “Discussion on methods for Rx/Tx timing delay mitigating” (Vivo) in view of US 2024/0276444 (Pan et al.) in view of US 2024/0230820 (Manolakos et al.).
As to claims 1 and 12, Vivo teaches an apparatus (UE), comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising computer program code (UE requires processing, memory and software to perform its cited tasks), the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor to cause the apparatus at least to
receive an indication that a sounding reference signal resource for positioning will be used for uplink positioning (Proposal 5: The UE can be requested to provide the association information of SRS resources for positioning with UE Tx TEG (s) to LMF; page 6);
receive, from a second network element, configuration for the sounding reference signal resource for positioning (The regular SRS configuration for positioning is determined and configured by the serving gNB; page 6, paragraph 3);
associate the sounding reference signal resource for positioning with a user equipment transmit timing error group (The UE can be requested to provide the association information of SRS resources for positioning with UE Tx TEG (s) to LMF – Including positioning accuracy requirement information in Tx TEG request; page 6);
determine that the apparatus report the user equipment transmit timing error group association to the first network element or to the second network element (We found that some information related to the uplink positioning can also be transmitted via LPP messages, for example, the UE can be requested to report UL related capabilities including UL SRS capabilities to the LMF directly via LPP as following. In addition, we think UE Tx TEG information is completely different from the SRS configuration. The regular SRS configuration for positioning is determined and configured by the serving gNB, however, the UE Tx TEG information is determined by the UE and there is no use for the serving gNB to obtain this information; page 6); and
report the user equipment transmit timing error group association to the first network element or to the second network element (compared with indirect indication of UE Tx TEG information through gNB, direct Tx TEG information indication to the LMF via LPP message is preferred; page 6).
What is explicitly lacking from Vivo is receive, from a first network element, an indication that a sounding reference signal resource for positioning will be used for uplink and downlink plus uplink positioning.
In analogous art, Pan teaches an LMF sending a request to a UE to report measurements involving the use of an SRS to determine UL-TDOAs and Multi-RTTs (see Pan, paragraphs 61, 63 and 144).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts to apply this teaching to Vivo, so as to ensure that all network elements, including the LMF, know which measurements are being made.
What is further lacking from Vivo is inform the first network element or the second network element that the apparatus will report the user equipment transmit timing error group association to the first network element or to the second network element.
In analogous art, Manolakos teaches a UE informing an LMF of capabilities that include whether the UE reports association information for Tx TEGs directly to the LMF or indirectly via a serving base station (see Manolakos, figure 5 and paragraphs 128 and 141).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts to apply this teaching to Vivo, so as to ensure that all network elements, including the LMF, know how the measurements will be reported.
As to claims 2 and 13, Vivo further teaches wherein the first network element is informed via a long term evolution positioning protocol (LPP, see page 6).
As to claims 3 and 14, Vivo further teaches wherein the user equipment transmit timing error group association is reported to the first network element directly via a radio positioning protocol, and wherein reporting the user equipment transmit timing error group association to the first network element is in response to receiving a request from the second network element to report the user equipment transmit timing error group association (note that claims 1 and 12 recites reporting transmit timing error group association to the first or second network element. Vivo anticipates both embodiments meaning that the limitations of claims 3 and 14 are not required to be given weight).
As to claims 4 and 15, Vivo further teaches wherein the second network element is informed via a radio resource control (note that claims 1 and 12 recites informing the first or second network element. Vivo in view of Manolakos anticipates informing the first network element meaning that the limitations of claims 4 and 15 are not required to be given weight).
As to claims 5 and 16, Vivo further teaches wherein the user equipment transmit timing error group association is reported to the second network element via a radio resource control message, and wherein reporting the user equipment transmit timing error group association to the second network element is in response to receiving a request from the first network element to report the user equipment transmit timing error group association (note that claims 1 and 12 recites reporting transmit timing error group association to the first or second network element. Vivo anticipates both embodiments meaning that the limitations of claims 3 and 14 are not required to be given weight).
As to claims 6 and 17, Pan’s cited teachings further teach the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor to cause the apparatus at least to receive an indication that a sounding reference signal resource for positioning will be used for uplink time difference of arrival and multi-cell round trip time (see Pan, paragraphs 61, 63 and 144).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts to apply this teaching to Vivo, so as to ensure that all network elements, including the LMF, know which measurements are being made.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 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, 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.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights