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 .
This office action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 07/06/2026.
In view of applicant’s amendment and arguments regarding objection to the drawings set forth in the previous office action, the objection is hereby withdrawn. In view of applicant’s amendment and arguments regarding objections to the claims, the objection is hereby withdrawn.
The applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejections necessitated by the applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 18, 37 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the start" in lines 9 – 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the start" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2 – 18 and 37 are also rejected as being dependent from the rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 11, 13, 18 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230199522 (Manolakos).
Regarding claim 1, Manolakos teaches “A method of operating a wireless communication device (shown in FIG 7 with corresponding description; user equipment 500), the method comprising:
- during a positioning measurement period for performing a positioning measurement: monitoring for positioning signals transmitted by a cellular network (paragraph 0133: At stage 740, the UE 500 identifies one or more positioning signals to be received by the UE 500, identifies one or more radio communication signals to be received by and/or transmitted by the UE 500, and identifies corresponding processing time(s). For example, the UE 500 may identify scheduled DL PRS to be received and/or transmitted between the UE 500 and the serving TRP 300-1, another TRP 300-2, in positioning messages 741, 742, 743, respectively.) and in response to an interruption event halting said monitoring for the positioning signals (paragraph 0134: At stage 750, the UE 500 identifies a potential collision of a positioning session and a radio communication session. For example, the positioning priority unit 560 may be configured to identify an overlap in time of a positioning session and a radio communication session. This may correspond to the claimed “an interruption event”. Paragraph 0137: At stage 770, the server 400, e.g., the positioning priority unit 460, may assign a priority and send a priority assignment message 764 to the UE 500. The priority assignment message 764 may indicate which of a positioning session or a radio communication session has higher priority. Paragraph 0139: the server 400 may explicitly assign the priority through the priority assignment message 764. This priority assignment message may also correspond to “an interruption event”. Paragraph 0144: At stage 780, the UE 500 performs the positioning session and/or the radio communication session in accordance with the determined priority. Based on the priority and the relative timing of the positioning session and the radio communication session, some or all of either session may not be performed. The case when some or all of the positioning session may not be performed and instead performing the radio communication session corresponds to the claimed “halting said monitoring for the positioning signals”. Paragraph 0144: An example is shown in FIG. 8C, with the radio communication session 820 having priority over the positioning session 810, and the positioning signal 812 scheduled to be received during the radio communication session 820, the UE 500 may ignore the positioning signal 812, perform the entirety of the radio communication session 820, and perform none of the positioning session 810.),
- in response to said halting of the monitoring: taking one or more actions associated with the interruption event (Paragraph 0144: At stage 780, the UE 500 performs the positioning session and/or the radio communication session in accordance with the determined priority. Based on the priority and the relative timing of the positioning session and the radio communication session, some or all of either session may not be performed. The case when some or all of the positioning session may not be performed and instead performing the radio communication session corresponds to the claimed “taking one or more actions associated with the interruption event”. As shown in FIG. 8C, with the radio communication session 820 having priority over the positioning session 810, and the positioning signal 812 scheduled to be received during the radio communication session 820, the UE 500 may ignore the positioning signal 812, perform the entirety of the radio communication session 820, and perform none of the positioning session 810.), and…”
“…a measure of time between the start of the positioning measurement period and said interruption event (although not explicitly disclosed, it is at least implicitly present. Indeed, paragraph 0134: the positioning priority unit 560 may be configured to identify an overlap in time of a positioning session and a radio communication session. Also, FIG 9A, C, 11A and 11C, all show this period of time as recited by the limitation. Please see Sketch 1 below based on FIG 9A with the Examiner’s annotation
PNG
media_image1.png
578
1235
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sketch 1
"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968))…”
Manolakos does not teach “performing a threshold comparison to compare” this measure of time “with a threshold.” However, the claim does not specify how the result of this comparison is used and whether it is used at all. Therefore, for the purpose of this claim, this step of comparison may simply be treated as design choice.
On the other side, the Examiner takes an official notice that comparing a value with a threshold was well known in the art at the effective filing date of the application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to compare this measure of time between the start of the positioning measurement period and the interruption event to a threshold simply as design choice with predictable results, the results being awareness of whether this measure of time is above or below the threshold and since, according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 5, Manolakos teaches “wherein the interruption event comprises reception of a reference signal from the cellular network (paragraph 0133: The UE 500 may also identify received DL signals such as data signals, reference signals (e.g., CSIRS (Channel State Information Reference Signal)). Paragraph 0138: assign priority to the positioning signal based on the radio communication session comprising reception of a CSIRS signal for CSI.).”
Regarding claim 11, Manolakos teaches “wherein said halting of said monitoring for the positioning signals comprises aborting said monitoring for the positioning signals (paragraph 0144: As shown in FIG. 8C, with the radio communication session 820 having priority over the positioning session 810, and the positioning signal 812 scheduled to be received during the radio communication session 820, the UE 500 may ignore the positioning signal 812, perform the entirety of the radio communication session 820, and perform none of the positioning session 810. As shown in FIG. 9C, with the radio communication session 920 having priority over the positioning session, a PRS 912 may be received but positioning processing not completed, and instead resources directed to performance of the radio communication session 920. As shown in FIG. 10C, the radio communication session 1020 is completely performed while the positioning session 1010 is ignored, with a positioning signal 1012 being ignored due to receipt during the higher-priority radio communication session 1020. In all of these cases, the user equipment aborts “monitoring for the positioning signals”).”
Regarding claim 13, Manolakos teaches “performing a further positioning measurement after said taking one or more actions associated with the interruption event (paragraph 0144: As shown in FIG. 8C, with the radio communication session 820 having priority over the positioning session 810, and the positioning signal 812 scheduled to be received during the radio communication session 820, the UE 500 may ignore the positioning signal 812, perform the entirety of the radio communication session 820, and perform none of the positioning session 810. Thus, the positioning measurement is aborted during time period 840. Paragraph 0152: the priority may be determined such that the positioning session has lower priority than the radio communication session for a first measurement gap of multiple scheduled measurement gaps in response to a second measurement gap of the scheduled measurement gaps being dedicated to positioning. Multiple measurement gaps 840, 850 may be scheduled, with the positioning session 810 may have lower priority in the measurement gap 840 based on the measurement gap 850 being dedicated to positioning. In other words, during the measurement gap 850, the user equipment performs “a further positioning measurement”. This is done after performing communication session during the period 840 representing “taking one or more actions associated with the interruption event”).”
Regarding claim 18, Manolakos teaches “wherein said halting of said monitoring is selectively executed depending on a priority level of the interruption event (paragraph 0144: At stage 780, the UE 500 performs the positioning session and/or the radio communication session in accordance with the determined priority. Based on the priority and the relative timing of the positioning session and the radio communication session, some or all of either session may not be performed. In FIGS. 8B, 9B, 10B, and 11B, the positioning session has higher priority and in FIGS. 8C, 9C, 10C, and 11C, the radio communication session has higher priority. As explained, whether the positioning session is continued to be performed depends on the determined priority).”
Regarding claim 38, Manolakos teaches “A method of operating a node of a cellular network (shown in FIG 7 with corresponding description; server 400), the method comprising:
- during a positioning measurement period for performing a positioning measurement by a wireless communication device (paragraph 0133: At stage 740, the UE 500 identifies one or more positioning signals to be received by the UE 500, identifies one or more radio communication signals to be received by and/or transmitted by the UE 500, and identifies corresponding processing time(s). For example, the UE 500 may identify scheduled DL PRS to be received and/or transmitted between the UE 500 and the serving TRP 300-1, another TRP 300-2, in positioning messages 741, 742, 743, respectively.), transmitting an interruption signal to the wireless communication device, wherein the interruption signal causes an interruption event at the wireless communication device, and the interruption event causes the wireless communication device to halt monitoring for positioning signals transmitted by the cellular network (Paragraph 0137: At stage 770, the server 400, e.g., the positioning priority unit 460, may assign a priority and send a priority assignment message 764 to the UE 500. The priority assignment message 764 may indicate which of a positioning session or a radio communication session has higher priority. Paragraph 0139: the server 400 may explicitly assign the priority through the priority assignment message 764. This priority assignment message corresponds to “an interruption signal”. Paragraph 0144: At stage 780, the UE 500 performs the positioning session and/or the radio communication session in accordance with the determined priority. Based on the priority and the relative timing of the positioning session and the radio communication session, some or all of either session may not be performed. The case when some or all of the positioning session may not be performed and instead performing the radio communication session corresponds to the claimed “halting said monitoring for the positioning signals”. Paragraph 0144: As shown in FIG. 8C, with the radio communication session 820 having priority over the positioning session 810, and the positioning signal 812 scheduled to be received during the radio communication session 820, the UE 500 may ignore the positioning signal 812, perform the entirety of the radio communication session 820, and perform none of the positioning session 810.)…”
“…a measure of time between the start of the positioning measurement period and said interruption event (although not explicitly disclosed, it is at least implicitly present. Indeed, paragraph 0134: the positioning priority unit 560 may be configured to identify an overlap in time of a positioning session and a radio communication session. Also, FIG 9A, C, 11A and 11C, all show this period of time as recited by the limitation. Please see Sketch 1 above in the rejection of claim 1 for explanation. "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)...”
Manolakos does not teach “to perform a threshold comparison to compare” this measure of time “with a threshold.” However, the claim does not specify how the result of this comparison is used and whether it is used at all. Therefore, for the purpose of this claim, this step of comparison may simply be treated as design choice.
On the other side, the Examiner takes an official notice that comparing a value with a threshold was well known in the art at the effective filing date of the application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to compare this measure of time between the start of the positioning measurement period and the interruption event to a threshold simply as design choice with predictable results, the results being awareness of whether this measure of time is above or below the threshold and since, according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230199522 (Manolakos) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2018184789 (SELVAGANAPATHY).
Regarding claim 6, while teaching various criteria for assigning priorities between positioning and communication, Manolakos does not disclose “wherein the interruption event comprises reception of high-priority application data from the cellular network.”
SELVAGANAPATHY in FIG 6 with corresponding description on pages 16 – 17 teaches that at S1, the SGSN receives downlink data when the Multilateration TA procedure has already started (which corresponds to claimed in claim 1 “monitoring for positioning signals transmitted by a cellular network”). At S2, the SGSN indicates the arrival of DL user data to the serving BSS. At S3 a determination is made at the SGSN of whether the downlink user data is identified as high priority data (“high-priority application data from the cellular network”), in which case the SGSN indicates whether immediate resumption of user data transmission is required or not as described with respect to S4 and S5. If it is determined to be high priority data, At S8 the BSS sends an Acknowledgement message in the downlink associated control channel which may contain Resume-lnd indication. If this field is set to "immediate", MS should access the serving cell and send packet channel request for DL TBF. If this field is set to "normal", MS should send the packet channel request for DL TBF in the serving cell after completing the multilateration positioning procedure. Therefore as shown at S9, the BSS decides to establish a downlink TBF, or informs MS to switch to packet access and stop MTA.
The disclosed process means that the “the interruption event comprises reception of high-priority application data from the cellular network.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by SELVAGANAPATHY reception of high-priority downlink application data as an additional condition in deciding whether the communication session or positioning session has a priority over one another, in the system of Manolakos. Doing so would have increased functionality of the system by providing an additional criterion in selecting priorities for positioning session and communication session.
Regarding claim 14, Manolakos does not disclose “providing, to the cellular network, a partial measurement report comprising positioning data of the positioning measurement acquired until said aborting.”
SELVAGANAPATHY in FIG 7 with corresponding description on p. 18 lines 0 – 8 from the bottom of the page teaches the base station pausing/terminating the positioning measurements performed by the mobile station, and performing position estimation based on available Multilateration TA / OTD reports. This at least implies (or it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art) that partial positioning reports have been received by the base station prior to determination of the positioning session.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by SELVAGANAPATHY transmission of partial position measurement reports, in the system of Manolakos. Doing so would have allowed the base station to try to determine the position of the mobile station based on the partial measurements, if any, transmitted prior to interruption of the positioning session.
Claims 2, 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230199522 (Manolakos) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 20230180173 (Kazmi’173).
Regarding claim 2, while teaching different criteria for assigning priorities between positioning and communication, Manolakos does not disclose “wherein the interruption event comprises reception of signaling from the cellular network to switch a bandwidth part of a carrier.”
Kazmi’173 in FIG 17 with corresponding description in paragraphs 0213, 0217, 0220 teaches a method 1200 performed by a wireless device 110. At step 1202, the wireless device 110 determines that switching from a first active BWP to a second BWP (“switch a bandwidth part of a carrier”) will affect at least one PMO during which at least one positioning measurement is to be performed. At step 1204, the wireless device 110 suspends the at least one positioning measurement while performing the active BWP switching from the first active BWP to the second active BWP. This includes determining that the switch from the first active BWP to the second active BWP occurs during at least a portion of the at least one PMO. This also includes determining that switching from the first active BWP to the second BWP will affect at least one PMO includes determining that the switch from the first active BWP to the second active BWP will interrupt at least one reference signal (RS) resource within a PMO; the switch from the first active BWP to the second active BWP will overlap with at least a number of RS resources. FIG 3, paragraphs 0097, 0098 and 0218 specifically state that triggering to change the active BWP switching from a first BWP (BWP1) 54 to a new or target BWP, second BWP (BWP2) 56 may occur, for example, upon receiving a message from a network node such as, for example, a DCI command. This corresponds to the claimed “reception of signaling from the cellular network to switch a bandwidth part of a carrier.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Kazmi’173 switching from a first active BWP to a second BWP, including reception of the “signaling from the cellular network to switch a bandwidth part of a carrier” as an additional condition for suspending positioning session, in the system of Manolakos. Doing so would have increased functionality of the system by providing an additional criterion in deciding whether to suspend or continue the positioning session.
Regarding claim 3, while teaching various criteria for assigning priorities between positioning and communication, Manolakos does not disclose “wherein the interruption event comprises performing a bandwidth part switching.”
Kazmi’173 in FIG 17 with corresponding description in paragraphs 0213, 0217, 0220 teaches a method 1200 performed by a wireless device 110. At step 1202, the wireless device 110 determines that switching from a first active BWP to a second BWP will affect at least one PMO during which at least one positioning measurement is to be performed. At step 1204, the wireless device 110 suspends the at least one positioning measurement while performing the active BWP switching from the first active BWP to the second active BWP. This includes determining that the switch from the first active BWP to the second active BWP occurs during at least a portion of the at least one PMO. This also includes determining that switching from the first active BWP to the second BWP will affect at least one PMO includes determining that the switch from the first active BWP to the second active BWP will interrupt at least one reference signal (RS) resource within a PMO; the switch from the first active BWP to the second active BWP will overlap with at least a number of RS resources.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Kazmi’173 switching from a first active BWP to a second BWP as an additional condition for suspending positioning session, in the system of Manolakos. Doing so would have increased functionality of the system by providing an additional criterion in deciding whether to suspend or continue the positioning session.
Regarding claim 12, while teaching aborting monitoring for the positioning signals (paragraph 0144: As shown in FIG. 9C, with the radio communication session 920 having priority over the positioning session, a PRS 912 may be received but positioning processing not completed, and instead resources directed to performance of the radio communication session 920.), Manolakos does not disclose “in response to said aborting of said monitoring for the positioning signals, discarding positioning data of the positioning measurement acquired until said aborting.”
Kazmi’173 in paragraph 0122 teaches the UE may be allowed to discard the previous measurement samples and take new samples upon resumption of the measurements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to discard previously collected positioning data prior to resumption of the measurements, as disclosed by Kazmi’173, in the system of Manolakos. Doing so would have allowed to start the positioning measurements anew without relying on older aborted measurements.
Claims 4 and 7 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230199522 (Manolakos) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20120083278 (Kazmi’278).
Regarding claim 4, Manolakos does not disclose “wherein the interruption event comprises reception of system information from the cellular network.”
Kazmi’278 teaches in FIG 8 with corresponding description in paragraph 0103 the UE 12 performing positioning measurements (block 204), such as OTDOA measurements on PRS. The UE 12 then receives an indication from a serving node 32, 52 that the primary carrier is to be switched from the first carrier to a second carrier (block 206). This may entail suspending the positioning measurements. This indication message corresponds to “an interruption event”, and the whole process corresponds to the recited in claim 1 “during a positioning measurement period for performing a positioning measurement: monitoring for positioning signals transmitted by a cellular network and in response to an interruption event halting said monitoring for the positioning signals.” Additionally, receiving, by the UE 12 an indication from a serving node 32, 52 that the primary carrier is to be switched from the first carrier to a second carrier corresponds to broadly recited “system information” as information on which carrier to use going forward.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize such an additional criterion of halting monitoring for the positioning signals as reception of such “system information” as an indication from a serving node that the primary carrier is to be switched from the first carrier to a second carrier, in the system of Manolakos. Doing so would have provided additional flexibility to the system by allowing to prioritize various system events over the positioning measurements.
Regarding claim 7, Manolakos does not explicitly disclose “wherein said halting of said monitoring for the positioning signals comprises temporarily suspending said monitoring for the positioning signals before said taking one or more actions associated with the interruption event.”
Kazmi’278 teaches in FIG 8 with corresponding description in paragraph 0103 the UE 12 performing positioning measurements (block 204), such as OTDOA measurements on PRS. The UE 12 then receives an indication from a serving node 32, 52 that the primary carrier is to be switched from the first carrier to a second carrier (block 206). The UE 12 switches to the second carrier as the primary carrier while preserving the ongoing positioning measurements (block 208). This may entail suspending the positioning measurements and restarting them on the new primary carrier, which is the same as “temporarily suspending said monitoring for the positioning signals before said taking one or more actions associated with the interruption event”, the action being switching to the second carrier.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize such an additional criterion of halting monitoring for the positioning signals as reception of an indication from a serving node that the primary carrier is to be switched from the first carrier to a second carrier, in the system of Manolakos. Doing so would have provided additional flexibility to the system by allowing to prioritize various system events over the positioning measurements.
Regarding claim 8, Manolakos in combination with Kazmi’278 teaches or fairly suggests “resuming said monitoring for the positioning signals after said taking one or more actions associated with the interruption event (Kazmi’278, par. 0069: after switching the carriers (“taking one or more actions associated with the interruption event”) UE 12 can perform positioning measurements on a secondary carrier without gaps, or if there are PRS transmitted on the new primary carrier. The UE 12 can acquire this information (i.e., whether the new primary carrier transmits PRS or not) from the assistance data, which is either old assistance data or new data sent after the primary carrier is switched. Par. 0103: The UE 12 switches to the second carrier as the primary carrier (“taking one or more actions associated with the interruption event”) while preserving the ongoing positioning measurements (block 208). This may entail suspending the positioning measurements and restarting them on the new primary carrier. Although Kazmi’278 does not explicitly disclose in paragraph 0103 “monitoring for the positioning signals”, the disclosure of restarting the positioning measurements on the new primary carrier implies that positioning reference signals are being monitored on the new primary carrier).”
Regarding claim 9, Manolakos in combination with Kazmi’278 teaches or fairly suggests “wherein said resuming of said monitoring for the positioning signals is in response to receiving a respective request from the cellular network (Kazmi’278, paragraph 0069: the UE 12 sends a message to the positioning node 40, 54 and/or radio network node 32, 52 indicating that it has switched the primary carrier while continuing the ongoing positioning session. It is then up to the network 10 whether to send updated assistance data to the UE 12 for positioning measurements, or alternatively the network 10 can ask UE 12 to abort the ongoing positioning session. In other words, sending updated assistance data to resume the positioning measurements, as opposed to aborting the positioning session, serves as an implicit “request from the cellular network”).”
Regarding claim 10, Manolakos in combination with Kazmi’278 teaches or fairly suggests “receiving further signaling, from the cellular network, associated with said monitoring for the positioning signals after said taking one or more actions associated with the interruption event (Kazmi’278, par. 0069: after switching the carriers (“taking one or more actions associated with the interruption event”) UE 12 can perform positioning measurements on a secondary carrier without gaps, or if there are PRS transmitted on the new primary carrier (“receiving further signaling, from the cellular network, associated with said monitoring for the positioning signals”). The UE 12 can acquire this information (i.e., whether the new primary carrier transmits PRS or not) from the assistance data, which is either old assistance data or new data sent after the primary carrier is switched. Par. 0103: The UE 12 switches to the second carrier as the primary carrier (“taking one or more actions associated with the interruption event”) while preserving the ongoing positioning measurements (block 208). This may entail suspending the positioning measurements and restarting them on the new primary carrier. Although Kazmi’278 does not explicitly disclose in paragraph 0103 “receiving further signaling, from the cellular network, associated with said monitoring for the positioning signals”, the disclosure of restarting the positioning measurements on the new primary carrier implies that positioning reference signals are being received on the new primary carrier (“receiving further signaling” “associated with said monitoring for the positioning signals”)).”
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230199522 (Manolakos) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of information well known in the art as may be evidenced by one or more of US 20210250798 (Jeong) and/or US 20220022277 (Zhao).
Regarding claim 16, Manolakos does not disclose “wherein the threshold is configured by the cellular network.”
However, using a timing threshold configured or supplied by the base station/network to compare with respective timing measurements was well known in the art at the effective filing date of the application as may be evidenced by Jeong (see paragraph 0105: gNB configures the threshold for the elapsed time stamp between T1 and T2. The threshold can be indicated as the number of slots, subframes, frames, milliseconds or seconds.) and/or Zhao (see paragraph 0129: the predetermined time threshold may be preconfigured, or configured by the network device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize a threshold configured by the network device to compare with the timing measurements, as is well-known in the art, in the system of Manolakos. Doing so would have allowed the network device to control the specific threshold to which the timing measurements are to be compared.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230199522 (Manolakos) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20230198708 (Hong).
Regarding claim 17, Manolakos does not disclose “wherein the threshold is in terms of a relative fraction of positioning reference signal resources of the positioning measurement period or is in terms of an absolute number of the positioning reference signal resources.”
Hong teaches “wherein the threshold” “is in terms of an absolute number of the positioning reference signal resources (paragraph 0286: the threshold is the minimum number of PRS sources necessary for positioning.).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize a threshold as the minimum number of PRS sources necessary for positioning, to compare with the timing measurements in the system of Manolakos. Doing so would have allowed the terminal to determine whether the number of detected PRS sources is equal to or greater than corresponding threshold (see Hong, paragraph 0286).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230199522 (Manolakos)) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20230035711 (Zheng).
Regarding claim 37, while teaching acquiring positional measurements until occurrence of interruption event, Manolakos does not disclose “performing a quality evaluation of positioning data of the positioning measurement acquired until said aborting, and depending on a result of the quality evaluation,, discarding the positioning data of the positioning measurement acquired until said aborting or providing, to the cellular network, the positioning data.”
Zheng in paragraph 0026 teaches techniques for determining and reporting a position estimate for the UE. Measurements corresponding to the best position estimate hypothesis may be screened, e.g., such that any measurement not meeting a threshold is ignored and remaining measurements are used to determine a candidate position estimate. If the candidate position estimate meets a desired quality of service, then the candidate position estimate may be reported.
In other words, Zheng teaches “performing a quality evaluation of positioning data of the positioning measurement acquired …, and depending on a result of the quality evaluation,, discarding the positioning data of the positioning measurement … or providing, to the cellular network, the positioning data.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Zheng procedure of quality evaluating positional measurements and reporting only those measurements that meet certain threshold, in the system of Manolakos capable of acquiring positional measurements until occurrence of interruption event. Doing so would have allowed the user equipment to report only those partial measurements that meet certain quality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 GENNADIY TSVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/GENNADIY TSVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights