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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/03/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 17-26, 28, 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al. (US 11722978 hereinafter Bao) in view of Si et al. (US 20240007994 hereinafter Si).
Regarding claim 1, Bao teaches A method comprising: determining, for a transmit timing error group of one or more antennas (29:25-34 “Different frequencies may have different group delay values in a transceiver, thus different PRS and SRS resources may be associated with different timing error groups (TEGs). Other electrical and physical features may further impact the actual delay time within a TEG. For example, changes in orientation relative to received and/or transmitted beams may utilize different antenna elements and may cause different levels of delay.”),
an indicator of whether a common transmit timing error that is within in a threshold margin is to be used to characterize the one or more antennas (29:45-48 “Each of the TEGs 802, 804, 806 may be identified with a TEG identification value (e.g., TEG1, TEG2, TEG3) and may be associated with delay times within established margins.”); and
(33:39-44 “The measurements may be based on various terrestrial positioning techniques and may include ToA, TDOA, RSTD, RTT, multi-RTT, Rx-Tx times, and other time of flight based measurements which may be modified based on timing error group correction/calibration information such as depicted in FIG. 7.” Fig 7 “PRS”).
Bao does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Si teaches reporting the indicator to a network node to enable a determination of whether to perform a time error calibration on one or more measurements performed on one or more reference signal resources (0417 “In some embodiments, before reporting a measurement result, the gNB receives an indication from the location server to indicate whether the gNB can calculate and/or report a time difference between Tx TEGs and/or compensate for an error of a Tx TEG in the measurement result.”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Si with the teachings of Bao. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve positioning precision (Si 0505). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Si merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both Bao and Si disclose similar TEG processing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the indicator comprises a transmit calibration indicator (Si claim 17 “calibration capability information, wherein the calibration capability information comprises at least one of the following: the terminal does not support calibration of a receive timing error Rx timing error, a transmit timing error Tx timing error”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Si with the teachings of Bao. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve positioning precision (Si 0505). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Si merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both Bao and Si disclose similar TEG processing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim1, wherein the indicator is determined for each of the one or more reference signal resources (Bao Abstract “determining a timing error change associated with one or more reference signal measurement values, and transmitting the one or more reference signal measurement values and an indication of the timing error change.”).
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the indicator is reported with a transmit error group identifier (Bao 29:45-48 “Each of the TEGs 802, 804, 806 may be identified with a TEG identification value (e.g., TEG1, TEG2, TEG3) and may be associated with delay times within established margins.”).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and therefore is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, the cited prior art teaches The apparatus of claim 17, wherein the indicator comprises a transmit calibration indicator (Si claim 17 “calibration capability information, wherein the calibration capability information comprises at least one of the following: the terminal does not support calibration of a receive timing error Rx timing error, a transmit timing error Tx timing error”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Si with the teachings of Bao. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve positioning precision (Si 0505). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Si merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both Bao and Si disclose similar TEG processing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, the cited prior art teaches The apparatus of claim 17, wherein the indicator is determined for each of the one or more reference signal resources (Bao Abstract “determining a timing error change associated with one or more reference signal measurement values, and transmitting the one or more reference signal measurement values and an indication of the timing error change.”).
Regarding claim 20, the cited prior art teaches The apparatus of claim 17, wherein the indicator is reported with a transmit error group identifier (Bao 29:45-48 “Each of the TEGs 802, 804, 806 may be identified with a TEG identification value (e.g., TEG1, TEG2, TEG3) and may be associated with delay times within established margins.”).
Regarding claim 21, the cited prior art teaches The apparatus of claim 17, wherein the apparatus is further caused to at least: receive configuration information including one or more reference signal resources on an uplink (Si 0003 “To support positioning, a terminal (User Equipment, UE) or a transmission and receiving point (TRP) may implement internal calibration/compensation on a Tx time delay for transmission of a Downlink Positioning Reference Signal (DL PRS) or an Uplink Sounding Reference Signal (UL SRS).”), wherein for each of the one or more reference signal resources, the determining includes determining a corresponding indicator and a corresponding transmit timing error group identifier (Si 0008 “where the first association relationship is used to indicate an association relationship between an uplink reference signal for positioning and a first timing error group (TEG)”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Si with the teachings of Bao. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve positioning precision (Si 0505). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Si merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both Bao and Si disclose similar TEG processing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 22, the cited prior art teaches The apparatus of claim 17, wherein the network node comprises, or is comprised in, at least one of a location management function or a base station (Bao 7:18-21 “A base station may operate according to one of several RATs in communication with UEs depending on the network in which it is deployed, and may be alternatively referred to as an Access Point (AP), a Network Node, a NodeB, an evolved NodeB (eNB), a general Node B (gNodeB, gNB), etc.”).
Regarding claim 23, the cited prior art teaches The apparatus of claim 17, wherein the indicator is reported via radio resource control message and/or a positioning protocol (Bao 13:22-25 “As further illustrated in FIG. 1, the LMF 120 may communicate with the gNBs 110a, 110b and/or the ng-eNB 114 using a New Radio Position Protocol A (which may be referred to as NPPa or NRPPa),”).
Regarding claim 24, the cited prior art teaches The apparatus of claim 17, wherein the indicator is reported as event based reporting, and wherein the event includes a change of the indicator for the one or more reference signal resources (Si 0165 “the first TEG associated with the uplink reference signal for positioning changes in a process of transmitting the uplink reference signal for positioning, triggering the terminal to send TEG indication signaling, where [0167] the TEG indication signaling is used to indicate the first association relationship or indicate that the first association relationship changes.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Si with the teachings of Bao. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve positioning precision (Si 0505). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Si merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both Bao and Si disclose similar TEG processing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 25, the cited prior art teaches The apparatus of claim 17, wherein the one or more reference signal resources comprise one or more sounding reference signal resources, one or more sidelink reference signals, and/or one or more physical random access channel resources (Si 0090 “The uplink reference signal for positioning may be an SRS or another signal for uplink positioning. The SRS may be an SRS for positioning or an SRS used for multi-antenna transmission.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Si with the teachings of Bao. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve positioning precision (Si 0505). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Si merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both Bao and Si disclose similar TEG processing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 26, claim 26 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and therefore is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1. Bao further teaches at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor (Bao 2:65-67 “An example apparatus according to the disclosure includes a memory, at least one transceiver, at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory and the at least one transceiver”) . . . receive one or more measurements performed on one or more reference signal resources (3:47-49 “The at least one processor may be further configured to receive the plurality of reference signal measurement values and the timing error group information via a sidelink communication protocol.”).
Regarding claim 28, the cited prior art teaches The apparatus of claim 27, wherein the receiving further includes receiving a first transmit timing error group identifier and a first indicator value for a first reference signal resource (Bao 34:50-55 “The indication of the timing error change may include measurement counter values 1008 for each of the one or more reference signal measurements 1003 (i.e., without the toggle bits 1006). The indication of the timing error change may include a timing error group identification value 1004 for each of the one or more reference signal measurements 1003.”) and further receiving the first transmit timing error group identifier and a second indicator value for a second reference signal resource (Bao 31:60-67 “In an example, the measurement values may be associated with a TEG ID field 1004 to indicate the TEG the measurement values are based on. The TEG ID may be explicitly included in the measurement reports 1000 (e.g., via a TEG ID field 1004), or may be determined implicitly based on other measurement values (e.g., PRS ID, frequency, bandwidth, etc.).”).
Regarding claim 30, the cited prior art teaches The apparatus of claim 29, wherein the receiving further includes receiving a first transmit error group identifier and a first indicator value for a first reference signal resource and further receiving the first transmit error group identifier and the first indicator value for a second reference signal resource (Si 0412 “The base station indicates, to the location server, the TEG identifier associated with the first TEG. For example, a reference Tx TEG identifier and another Tx TEG identifier are indicated.”; 0623 “In an implementation, in one RxTx TEG, the UE may indicate at least one group of {PRS resources, SRS resources}, and the at least one group is located in a same RxTx TEG, or shares a same RxTx TEG ID. PRS resources and SRS resources between different groups are not in a same RxTx TEG.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Si with the teachings of Bao. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve positioning precision (Si 0505). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Si merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both Bao and Si disclose similar TEG processing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 31, the cited prior art teaches The apparatus of claim 26, wherein the indicator is received with a transmit timing error group identifier (Si 0089 “The association relationship may be represented by an associated TEG identifier ID, or uplink reference signals for positioning or downlink positioning measurement results of a same TEG are grouped into one group, or may be represented in another manner.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Si with the teachings of Bao. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve positioning precision (Si 0505). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Si merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both Bao and Si disclose similar TEG processing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 32, the cited prior art teaches The apparatus of claim 26, wherein the one or more reference signal resources comprise one or more sounding reference signal resources, one or more sidelink reference signals, and/or one or more physical random access channel resources (Si 0090 “The uplink reference signal for positioning may be an SRS or another signal for uplink positioning. The SRS may be an SRS for positioning or an SRS used for multi-antenna transmission.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Si with the teachings of Bao. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve positioning precision (Si 0505). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Si merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both Bao and Si disclose similar TEG processing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al. (US 11722978 hereinafter Bao) in view of Si et al. (US 20240007994 hereinafter Si) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 20210212009 hereinafter Wu).
Regarding claim 27, the cited prior art teaches The apparatus of claim 26,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Wu teaches wherein the determination further causes the apparatus to at least: in response to the indicator being determined as indicating that the common transmit timing error exceeds the threshold margin, perform the time error calibration on the one or more measurements for one or more reference signal resources (0136 “if the terminal satisfies the foregoing trigger event, the terminal is triggered to calibrate the reference time . . . [0141] for example, if a path loss when the last reference time calibration is performed is P1, and a current path loss is P2, and a threshold is T, when (P2−P1)≥T, it indicates that the terminal detects that the reference time is inaccurate, where the threshold may be configured by the network or prescribed by the protocol”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Wu with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve measurement accuracy (Wu 0130). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Wu merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both Wu and the cited prior art disclose similar calibration processing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao et al. (US 11722978 hereinafter Bao) in view of Si et al. (US 20240007994 hereinafter Si) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ernstrom et al. (US 20240183928 hereinafter Ernstrom).
Regarding claim 29, the cited prior art teaches The apparatus of claim 26, wherein the determination further causes the apparatus to at least: in response to the indicator being determined as indicating that the common transmit timing error does not exceed the threshold margin (Bao 6:15-20 “The TEG may be associated with one or more different uplink, downlink and/or sidelink signals, and may include TX and RX timing error values within a certain margin. In operation, the actual time delays associated with a TEG may vary within the margin. That is, a particular TEG may cover a range of time delays”),
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Ernstrom teaches inhibit the performance of the time error calibration on the one or more measurements for one or more reference signal resources (0107 “if an SRS transmission is performed and associated to a spatial index, and a timing adjustment is made during this SRS transmission, and the timing adjustment result in that the timing error difference between this SRS transmission and previous SRS transmissions associated to the same spatial index and to the current temporal index can't be ensured to be smaller than the margin delta then the temporal index is incremented with one modulo N−1. Note that this behavior is captured by the general criteria for incrementing the temporal index.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Ernstrom with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve measurement accuracy (Ernstrom 0006). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Ernstrom merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular processing. Since both Ernstrom and the cited prior art disclose similar TEG processing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
MANOLAKOSet al. (US 20240314609) discloses “Disclosed are techniques for wireless positioning. In an aspect, a network node performs a first measurement of a first reference signal resource, performs a second measurement of a second reference signal resource, determines, based on one or more consistency criteria, whether associating the first measurement and the second measurement with a same timing error group identifier (TEG-ID) indicates that a difference between a first timing error of the first measurement and a second timing error of the second measurement is less than a threshold, and reports, at least based on the determining, the first measurement and the second measurement in a batch measurement report, the first measurement and the second measurement associated with a first TEG-ID and a second TEG-ID, respectively. (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648