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 .
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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 13-14, 16-18, 20-24, 28-29, 31-33, 35-39, 43-44, 46-48, 50-54, 58-59, 61-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cha (US 2023/0328680).
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]).
As to claims 2, 17, 32, 47, Cha discloses that the identifier of the sub-cell comprises: an identifier of a cell portion within a cell associated with the UE (see paragraphs [0150], [0163], [0173]), an identifier of a transmission-reception point (TRP) serving the UE (see paragraphs [0244], [0255], [0276]), or an identifier of a repeater serving the UE.
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 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]).
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.
Claims 4, 15, 19, 30, 34, 45, 49, 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha.
As to claims 4, 19, 34, 49, Cha fails to disclose that the location information report includes time information associated with the identifier of the sub-cell. The examiner, however, takes Official Notice that including time information in a location information report is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Cha as claimed, in order to yield predictable results such as providing more accurate location data.
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). The examiner, however, takes Official Notice that such a base station distributed unit (DU), and a base station central unit (CU) are known in the art. 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 modify Chas as claimed, 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 in view of Edge (US 2020/0053638).
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.
Cha (US 2022/0264491), Cha (US 2020/0367193), Jung (US 2009/0318151) disclose reporting location information.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571) 272-4177. 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