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 03/29/2024. Claims 1 – 15 are pending in this application.
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.
Claim 11 is 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 11 states “The UE of claim 6”. However, claim 6 is for a method, while it is claim 7 which is for user equipment (UE). Also judging from the position of claim 11 in the list of claims, it appears that it should be dependent from claim 7 rather than claim 6. Therefore, it is not clear whether the intention for claim 11 was for it to be dependent from claim 6 or from claim 7.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the at least one processors". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 12 (for a method performed by a base station) and 13 (for a base station) are directed to the abstract idea of using categories to organize, store and transmit information (expressed as “generating” and transmitting a command).
This corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas or “an idea ‘of itself’” by the courts, such as using categories to organize, store and transmit information in Cyberfone.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 12 and 13 recite the additional limitations “the at least one first positioning MG is deactivated.” However, this action is performed by a user equipment and thus is beyond the scope of claims 12 and 13 directed to the base station or its method of operation.
Claim 13 recites the additional limitations “a transceiver; and at least one processor connected to the transceiver”. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and are not recited as performing any functions apart from generation and transmission. Generic components recited as performing generic functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation in generating and transmitting information.
Claims 12 and 13 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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, 5 – 7 and 10 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20240129893 (Si) (having effective filing date June 30, 2021).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 14 and 15, Si teaches (using claim 14 as representative claim) “An apparatus (FIG 1: terminal 11. Also FIG 6 and paragraph 0354: a communication device 600) configured to operate in a wireless communication system (paragraph 0040 and FIG 1: The communication system includes a terminal 11 and a network side device 12.), the apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory operably connected to the at least one processor and configured to store one or more instructions (paragraph 0354: a communication device 600, including a processor 601, a memory 602, and a program or instructions stored in the memory 602 and executable on the processor 601.) that, based on execution, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving an activation/deactivation command for at least one first positioning measurement gap (MG) included in predetermined positioning MGs via a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE); and deactivating the at least one first positioning MG based on that the activation/deactivation command instructs deactivation of the at least one first positioning MG (paragraph 0145: An implementation of explicit deactivation is as follows: the terminal deactivates the pre-configured measurement gap (corresponding to “predetermined positioning MG”) based on a deactivation message/signaling (corresponding to “an activation/deactivation command for at least one first positioning measurement gap (MG)”). The deactivation message/signaling may be carried through at least one message including MAC CE. Plurality of “predetermined positioning MGs” is addressed in paragraph 0053: the set of pre-configured measurement gaps. Paragraph 0060: when the status of the pre-configured measurement gap is the deactivated state, the pre-configured measurement gap information includes the activation manner of the pre-configured measurement gap; and when the status of the pre-configured measurement gap is the activated state, the pre-configured measurement gap information includes the deactivation manner of the pre-configured measurement gap. Thus “an activation/deactivation command”).”
Claim 7 additionally includes “transceiver”; this is disclosed by Si in FIG 7 and paragraph 0356: The terminal 700 includes a radio frequency unit 701.
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Si teaches “comprising activating at least one first positioning MG based on that the activation/deactivation command instructs activation of the at least one first positioning MG (paragraphs 0113 – 0114: receiving an activation message; and activating the pre-configured measurement gap based on the activation message).”
Regarding claim 6, Si teaches “wherein based on that the activation/deactivation command instructing the activation of the at least one first positioning MG includes information on a deactivation time, the activated at least one first positioning MG is deactivated after a time identified based on the information on the deactivation time (paragraph 0127: the network side device indicates the terminal to measure the positioning reference signal within the positioning measurement time window, the first event information further includes: an indication of receiving the positioning measurement time window (“information on a deactivation time”). The terminal may assume that the status of the pre-configured measurement gap within the positioning measurement time window is the activated state (thus this indication from the network side device serves as an implicit “the activation/deactivation command instructing the activation of the at least one first positioning MG includes”), and the status of the pre-configured measurement gap outside the positioning measurement time window is the deactivated state (corresponds to the claimed “at least one first positioning MG is deactivated after a time identified based on the information on the deactivation time”). After the terminal receives the positioning measurement request, the terminal may assume that the status of the pre-configured measurement gap within the positioning measurement time window is the activated state, and the status of the pre-configured measurement gap outside the positioning measurement time window is the deactivated state.).”
Regarding claim 11, Si teaches “wherein the at least one processors is configured to communicate with at least one of a mobile terminal, a network (as shown in FIG 1, when the processor is installed in the terminal 11, the terminal communicates with the network through the network side device 12 is), and an autonomous vehicle other than a vehicle including the UE.”
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Si teaches (using claim 13 as representative claim) “A base station (BS) (FIG 1: a network side device 12. Paragraph 0040: The network side device 12 may be a base station) configured to operate in a wireless communication system (paragraph 0040 and FIG 1: The communication system includes a terminal 11 and a network side device 12.), the BS comprising:
a transceiver (transceiver is implicit for base station); and at least one processor connected to the transceiver (FIG 6 and paragraph 0354: When the communication device 600 is a network side device, the program or the instructions, when executed by the processor 601, implement the processes of the embodiments of the positioning configuration method), wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
generate an activation/deactivation command for at least one first positioning measurement gap (MG) included in predetermined positioning MGs; and transmit the activation/deactivation command via a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) (paragraph 0060: The activation message is sent by the first network side device through a MAC CE (“a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE)”) message. Paragraph 0145: The deactivation message is sent by the first network side device through a MAC CE message. Plurality of “predetermined positioning MGs” is addressed in paragraph 0053: the set of pre-configured measurement gaps. Since the deactivation or activation message is transmitted by the network side device, it’s “generation” is implicit), wherein based on the activation/deactivation command instructs deactivation of the at least one first positioning MG, the at least one first positioning MG is deactivated (paragraph 0145: the terminal deactivates the pre-configured measurement gap based on a deactivation message/signaling.).”
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 2 – 4, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240129893 (Si) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Discussion on latency enhancement for NR positioning (Vivo) (submitted by the Applicant).
Regarding claims 2 and 8, Si does not explicitly teach “wherein the predetermined positioning MGs are preconfigured through radio resource control (RRC) signaling, and wherein the predetermined positioning MGs are related to different identifiers, respectively.”
Vivo teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the predetermined positioning MGs are preconfigured through radio resource control (RRC) signaling, and wherein the predetermined positioning MGs are related to different identifiers, respectively (p. 7, Proposal 3: The pre-configured MG should be transmitted to UE by RRC signaling. Sec. 3.2.1, last sentence: if multiple pre-configured MG is configured, the pre-configured ID should be defined to identify pre-configured MG. The line just above FIG 2 and FIG 3: pre-configured MG ID for multiple pre-configured MG).”
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 Vivo usage of RRC to preconfigure plurality of MGs including different identifiers, in the system of Si. Doing so would have allowed to preconfigure more than one measurement gap and use respective identifiers to distinguish each gap from another.
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Si in combination with Vivo teaches “wherein the MAC CE includes at least one identifier, and wherein based on that the activation/deactivation command instructs the deactivation of the at least one first positioning MG, at least one positioning MG related to the at least one identifier included in the MAC CE among the predetermined positioning MGs related to the different identifiers is identified as the at least one first positioning MG to be deactivated (Vivo teaches multiple MGs with respective identifiers, while Si in paragraph 0145 teaches that the content of the deactivation message/signaling includes at least one of the following: a deactivation identifier, a pre-configured measurement gap configuration identifier (for deactivating a pre-configured measurement gap of a specific configuration, and optionally, there are one or more first pre-configured measurement gap configuration identifiers). Paragraph 0119: the deactivation message can be sent through a MAC CE. Identification of a specific MG for deactivation based on the information in the message is implicit.).”
Regarding claim 4, Si in combination with Vivo teaches “further comprising transmitting an activation request for at least one second positioning MG among the predetermined positioning MGs via the MAC CE, wherein the activation request includes at least one identifier related to the at least one second positioning MG among the different identifiers (paragraphs 0094 – 0095: sending, by the terminal, a measurement gap activation request, where the measurement gap activation request is used for requesting to activate the pre-configured measurement gap. Specifically, a message carrying the measurement gap activation request may be a MAC CE message. Paragraphs 0096 – 0099: the measurement gap activation request includes at least one of the following: a first pre-configured measurement gap configuration identifier for activating a pre-configured measurement gap of a specific configuration; optionally, there may be one or more pre-configured measurement gap configuration identifiers (that is, request to activate one or more pre-configured measurement gaps)).”
Conclusion
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