DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on May 26, 2026. As set forth therein, claims 1-63, 65, 69, and 71-83 are cancelled and claims 84-92 are newly added. Claims 64, 66-68, 70, and 84-92 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Argument
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
In view of the amendment to claims 68 and 70 and the cancellation of claim 77, the Examiner finds that the Applicant has overcome the previous rejection. Therefore, the 112(b) rejection will be withdrawn.
Rejections of Claims Under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103
Goyal
The Examiner notes that with respect to “wherein the positioning message comprises the positioning physical random access channel preamble transmission sent during one of the positioning physical random access channel opportunities, without exchanging identity information with the network”, the Applicant states Goyal’s procedure relies on the WTRU subsequently transmitting identity information, whereas claim 64 expressly requires the positioning physical random access channel preamble transmission to be sent without exchanging identity information with the network.
It is acknowledged that Goyal discloses that the WTRU is identified by a temporary WTRU identifier and that this identifier is exchanged with the network. See paragraphs [0124], [0128] and [0135-0136] of Goyal.
The Applicant also states that Goyal fails to disclose the claimed transmit power selection based on a weakest received synchronization signal block among an identified plurality of transmission reception points and that Goyal further fails to disclose the claimed positioning response having content contingent on whether a collision is detected for the positing physical random access channel preamble transmission. The Applicant also states that claim 64 requires that, when no collision is detected, the positing random access response includes an identified of the position physical random access channel preamble and either a position of the apparatus or respective time-of-arrival measurement sand respective identifiers of the identified plurality of transmission reception points from which the apparatus calculates its position. The Applicant states that Goyal’s PRAR does not provide the UE with its position or with respective time-of-arrival measurements and corresponding TRP identifiers for UE-side position calculation. Rather, Goyal’s PRAR provides information such as TA, a temporary identifier, an uplink allocation, and uplink configuration.
The Examiner notes that the claimed “when no collision is detected” and “when a collision is detected” are contingent limitations. See MPEP 2111.04(II). Thus, it is maintained that one of the cited limitations need be performed. Nonetheless, the Examiner acknowledges that Goyal does not specifically disclose “wherein the positioning response is a positioning random access response having content contingent on whether a collision is detected for the positioning physical random access channel preamble transmission, and wherein the positioning random access response includes: when no collision is detected, an identification of the positioning physical random access channel preamble and either: a position of the apparatus computed using measurements from the identified plurality of transmission reception points, or respective time-of-arrival measurements and respective identifiers of the identified plurality of transmission reception points; and when a collision is detected, an identification of the positioning physical random access channel preamble and an indication of restricted contention based positioning resources dedicated to devices involved in collisions”.
Therefore, the Examiner finds the Applicant’s arguments persuasive.
Sundararajan
The Applicant also states that Sundararajan does not disclose receiving, in a system information block, positing physical random access channel information that identifies both: (i) a plurality of TRPs that are to receive the UE’s positioning physical random access channel preamble transmission, and (ii) a power offset for open loop power control. The Applicant states that although Sundararajan describes receiving positioning configuration information and., in some examples, broadcasting such configuration information as SIB1 messages, the disclosed configuration defines resources for positing Message A or Message B in an RTT procedure. Sundararajan does not disclose the claimed P-PRACH information identifying a plurality of TRPs, that are to receive the same P-PRACH preamble transmission together with a power offset used for open loop power control.
The Applicant further states that Sundararajan does not disclose monitoring a PDDCH during a positioning random access response timer for DCI scrambled with a positioning random access radio network temporary identifier associated with the positioning physical random access channel opportunity used for the P-PRACH preamble transmission. The Applicant states that Sundararajan describes receiving positioning Message B in a positioning RACH procedure, and separately discusses conventional RACH concepts such as RA-RNTI in a general background discussion of ordinary random access. However, Sundararajan does not disclose the claimed positioning RA-RNTI associated with a P-PRACH opportunity used for a contention-based positioning preamble transmission, nor does it disclose monitoring for a collision-dependent positioning random access response as claimed.
In addition, the Applicant states that Sundararajan discloses a positioning RACH procedure for RTT measurement in which a UE transmits a positioning Message A and receives a positioning Message B containing timing information. The Applicant states that this disclosure does not teach the claimed collision-dependent P-PRACH positioning random access response, the claimed restricted contention based positioning resources for collided devices, or the claimed retransmission of a further P-PRACH preamble with such restricted resource.
The Examiner notes that in review of the arguments set forth by the Applicant, it is agreed that Sundararajan does not disclose the claim as amended.
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 64, 66-68, 70, and 84-92 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 64 recites the limitation "the serving network element" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is noted that if this issue is corrected, then line 14 in claim 64 should also be changed from “a serving network element” to “the serving network element” so it can refer back to the initial serving network element.
Claims 66-68, 70, and 84-92 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 64, 66-67, 70, and 84-92 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The Examiner notes that in view of the above comments in the response to arguments section, the prior art of record does not disclose “receiving, from the serving network element in a system information block, positioning physical random access channel information identifying: positioning physical random access channel opportunities, a plurality of transmission reception points that are to receive a positioning physical random access channel preamble transmission, and a power offset for open loop power control…wherein the positioning message comprises the positioning physical random access channel preamble transmission sent during one of the positioning physical random access channel opportunities, without exchanging identity information with the network, and using a transmit power selected based on a weakest received synchronization signal block among the identified plurality of transmission reception points and the power offset….wherein the positioning response is a positioning random access response having content contingent on whether a collision is detected for the positioning physical random access channel preamble transmission, and wherein the positioning random access response includes: when no collision is detected, an identification of the positioning physical random access channel preamble and either: a position of the apparatus computed using measurements from the identified plurality of transmission reception points, or respective time-of-arrival measurements and respective identifiers of the identified plurality of transmission reception points; and when a collision is detected, an identification of the positioning physical random access channel preamble and an indication of restricted contention based positioning resources dedicated to devices involved in collisions; responsive to receiving the respective time-of-arrival measurements and respective identifiers of the identified plurality of transmission reception points,” in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim.
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 OVIDIO ESCALANTE whose telephone number is (571)272-7537. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 6:00 AM to 3:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Fuelling, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-7537. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/Ovidio Escalante/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights