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 with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-16, 18-31, 33-46, 48-64 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
Regarding independent claims 1, 16, 31, 46, 61, 62, 63, and 64, applicant’s attention is directed to Wang (US 2024/0007991 A1) which discloses the newly-added claimed limitations. More particularly, Wang discloses that a location information report includes a plurality of sub-cell identifiers associated with a UE, including at least: an identifier of a transmission-reception point (TRP) serving the UE (see paragraph [0335]); and an identifier of a cell portion within a cell associated with the UE (see paragraph [0328]). See also paragraph [0317] which discloses “the reported location information includes … at least one of the following:”.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding claims 4, 15, 19, 30, 34, 45, 49, 60, applicant asserts that “Cha does not disclose a location information report that includes a plurality of sub-cell identifiers, specifically both a TRP identifier and a cell portion identifier, as recited by amended independent claims 1, 16, 31, and 46. The Examiner's Official Notice regarding time information (claims 4, 19, 34, 49) and base station distributed unit/central unit configurations (claims 15, 30, 45, 60) does not cure the deficiency of Cha with respect to the amended independent claims. Accordingly, dependent claims 4, 15, 19, 30, 34, 45, 49, and 60 are allowable at least for the same reasons as the amended independent claims from which they depend.”
In response, applicant’s attention is directed to Wang (US 2024/0007991 A1). Wang discloses that the location information report includes time information (paragraphs [0333], [0336]) associated with the identifier of the sub-cell (paragraph [0328]). See also paragraph [0317].
In response, applicant’s attention is directed to Edge (US 2021/0051559 A1). Edge discloses that a first network node is a base station distributed unit (DU) (see figure 2, legends “gNB-DU”), and a second network node is a base station central unit (CU) (see figure 2, legends “gNB-CU”). See paragraph [0423].
Regarding remaining dependent claims, they are discussed for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner contends that the rejections to claims 1, 3-16, 18-31, 33-46, 48-64 are proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-16, 18-31, 33-46, 48-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding independent claim 1, the instant specification fails to disclose the newly-claimed limitations “the location information report includes a plurality of sub-cell identifiers associated with the UE, including at least: an identifier of a transmission-reception point (TRP) serving the UE; and an identifier of a cell portion within a cell associated with the UE”. Emphasis added by the examiner.
Applicant asserts that the instant specification, at least paragraphs [0118]-[0119], supports the above newly-added claimed limitations. The examiner, however, disagrees.
The instant specification, paragraph [0118], states “The sub-cell identifier may be (1) a cell portion ID of a cell portion (e.g. a sub-area 730) within a cell associated with the target UE, (2) an identifier of a TRP serving the target UE, or (3) an identifier of a repeater (e.g., a repeater 720) serving the target UE”. Emphasis added by the examiner.
Therefore, the examiner contends that the instant specification, at least paragraphs [0118]-[0119], fails to support the above newly-added claimed limitations.
Regarding independent claims 16, 31, 46, 61, 62, 63, and 64, they are discussed for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
The claims in this application are given their 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.
See claims 61, 62 which include the terms “means for”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 13-14, 16, 18-24, 28-29, 31, 33-39, 43-44, 46, 48-54, 58-59, 61-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (US 2023/0328680) in view of Wang (US 2024/0007991 A1).
As to claim 1, Cha discloses a method of communication performed by a first network node gNB (see at least figures 6-7), comprising: receiving, from a second network node AMF, a request for location information for a user equipment (UE) (see UE in figure 6) served by the first network node gNB (see at least figure 6, paragraph [0150]); and transmitting, to the second network node AMF, a location information report for the UE, the location information report including at least an identifier of a sub-cell with which the UE is associated (see paragraphs [0150], [0163], [0173]).
Cha fails to disclose that the location information report includes a plurality of sub-cell identifiers associated with the UE, including at least: an identifier of a transmission-reception point (TRP) serving the UE; and an identifier of a cell portion within a cell associated with the UE. Wang discloses that a location information report includes a plurality of sub-cell identifiers associated with a UE, including at least: an identifier of a transmission-reception point (TRP) serving the UE (see paragraph [0335]); and an identifier of a cell portion within a cell associated with the UE (see paragraph [0328]). See also paragraph [0317] which discloses “the reported location information includes … at least one of the following:”. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Wang to Cha, in order to yield predictable results such as reporting UE location more accurately.
As to claims 3, 18, 33, 48, Cha discloses that the request for location information indicates a requested sub-cell level of granularity, the requested sub-cell level of granularity comprising: a cell portion within a cell associated with the UE, a TRP serving the UE (see paragraphs [0244], [0255], [0275], [0314]), or a repeater serving the UE.
As to claims 4, 19, 34, 49, the combination of Cha and Wang discloses that the location information report includes time information (see Wang, paragraphs [0333], [0336]) associated with the identifier of the sub-cell (see Wang, paragraph [0328]). See also paragraph [0317].
As to claims 5, 20, 35, 50, Cha discloses that the location information report further includes: a physical cell identifier (PCI) associated with the identifier of the sub-cell, a New Radio cell global identifier (NCGI) associated with the identifier of the sub-cell, an absolute radio-frequency channel number (ARFCN) associated with the identifier of the sub-cell, a positioning reference signal (PRS) configuration associated with the identifier of the sub-cell (see paragraph [0130]), synchronization signal block (SSB) information associated with the identifier of the sub-cell (see paragraph [0233]), a system frame number (SFN) initialization time associated with the identifier of the sub-cell, spatial direction information associated with the identifier of the sub-cell, geographic coordinates associated with the identifier of the sub-cell (see paragraph [0314]), or any combination thereof.
As to claims 6, 21, 36, 51, Cha discloses receiving, from the second network node AMF, one or more trigger conditions for transmitting the location information report (see paragraph [0148]).
As to claims 7, 22, 37, 52, Cha discloses that the one or more trigger conditions are associated with a set of TRPs, a set of repeaters, or a set of sub-cell identifiers (see paragraph [0148]).
As to claims 8, 23, 38, 53, Cha discloses that the one or more trigger conditions comprise whether the UE attached to or detached from a TRP in the set of TRPs or a repeater in the set of repeaters, whether the UE is served by one or none of the set of TRPs or the set of repeaters (see paragraph [0149] which discloses trigger condition comprising measuring the position of the UE for an emergency call; see paragraph [0184] which discloses the TRPs measuring the position of the UE), or any combination thereof.
As to claims 9, 24, 39, 54, Cha discloses that the one or more trigger conditions are associated with one or more areas of interest associated with one or more sub-cells associated with the first network node (see paragraphs [0087], [0122], [0173], [0282]).
As to claims 13, 28, 43, 58, Cha discloses that the first network node is a Next Generation radio access network (NG-RAN) node, and the second network node is an access and mobility management function (AMF). See paragraph [0150], figure 6.
As to claims 14, 29, 44, 59, Cha discloses that the request is a Location Reporting Control message (see paragraphs [0122], [0142]), and the location information report is a Location Report message (see paragraphs [0146], [0235], [0325]).
As to claims 16, 61-62 they are rejected for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above.
As to claims 31, 46, they are rejected for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above. In addition, Cha further discloses a memory 230 (see at least figure 23), at least one transceiver 235; and at least one processor 210 communicatively coupled to the memory 230 and the at least one transceiver 235.
As to claims 63-64, they are rejected for similar reasons with respect to independent claim 1 as set forth above. In addition, Cha further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (see paragraph [0376]).
Claims 15, 30, 45, 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (US 2023/0328680) in view of Wang (US 2024/0007991 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Edge (US 2021/0051559 A1).
As to claims 15, 30, 45, 60, Cha fails to disclose that the first network node is a base station distributed unit (DU), and the second network node is a base station central unit (CU). Edge discloses that a first network node is a base station distributed unit (DU) (see figure 2, legends “gNB-DU”), and a second network node is a base station central unit (CU) (see figure 2, legends “gNB-CU”). See paragraph [0423]. Moreover, those skilled in the art would recognize that these claimed limitations do not involve any inventive concept. They merely depend on arbitrary types of the first and second network nodes. In addition, the specification of the instant application fails to disclose any unexpected results obtained from the fact that the first network node is a base station distributed unit (DU), and the second network node is a base station central unit (CU). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Edge to Chas, in order to yield predictable results such as enhancing flexibility and performance.
Claims 10-12, 25-27, 40-42, 55-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha (US 2023/0328680) in view of Wang (US 2024/0007991 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Edge (US 2020/0053638 A1).
As to claims 10, 25, 40, 55, Cha fails to disclose that the one or more trigger conditions comprise whether the UE entered or exited the one or more areas of interest. Edge discloses that one or more trigger conditions comprise whether a UE entered or exited the one or more areas of interest (see paragraph [0128]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Edge to Cha, in order to yield predictable results such as accurately routing communication signals to/from the UE.
As to claims 11, 26, 41, 56, Cha fails to disclose that the location information report is transmitted periodically. Edge discloses transmitting location information report periodically (see paragraph [0128]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Edge to Cha, in order to yield predictable results such as keeping the EU locations updated.
As to claims 12, 27, 42, 57, Cha fails to disclose receiving, from the second network node, a request for a list of sub-cells associated with the first network node. Edge discloses receiving, from a second network node AMF 154, a request for a list of sub-cells associated with a first network node gNB (see paragraph [0128] which discloses “The message may contain a UE 105 identification, a Reporting Type, an optional Location Reporting Level (e.g. indicating an area of interest”). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Edge to Cha, in order to yield predictable results such as assisting the EU to determine its location.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang (US 2015/0071125 A1) discloses location information with cell ID. See paragraph [0011].
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 NGUYEN THANH VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7901. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Jeanette J Parker can be reached at (571) 270-3647. 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.
/NGUYEN T VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights