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 a response to communications dated 04/02/2024. Claims 1-30 are pending in the application. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 04/02/2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been considered and placed in the application file . Claim Objections Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: As per claim 2, line 2, “an subcarrier” should be changed to --a subcarrier --.. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim 1-3, 10-15, 22-27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 2022/0030544) (hereinafter “Zhou”) in view of Moderator (Intel Corporation), Feature Lead Summary#3 for E-mail Discussion [107-e-NR-ePos-06], 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #107 e-Meeting, R1-2112571, 58 pages, November 11th-19th, 2021 (hereinafter “Intel”). Regarding claim 1 , in accordance with Zhou reference entirety, Zhou teaches a method of modifying transmission of sounding reference signal (SRS) by a user equipment (UE) during an unconnected state relative to a communication network ( para [0042]: “ To perform positioning .. a 2-step or 4-step RACH procedure adapted for positioning in the RRC Idle state or in the RRC Inactive state may involve the transmission or reception of reference signals with high bandwidth .” ) , the method comprising: receiving, at the UE, a first message comprising a first downlink (DL) message ( PRS signals ) from a transmission/reception point (TRP) ( gNBs ) via a DL bandwidth part (BWP) associated with an uplink (UL) BWP ( para [0043]: “… multiple gNBs send , at 305, PRS signals to the UE to be located (i.e., positioning of which is to be perform … .” ) , wherein the first message ( PRS signals ) is received while the UE is configured to transmit one or more SRS instances via an SRS BWP different than the UL BWP while the UE is in the unconnected state relative to the communication network ( para [0045]: "... PRS is configured via posSIBs and RACH is configured via SIB1. If a UE is not provided initialDownlinkBWP in SIB1, an initial DL bandwidth part (BWP) is defined by CORESET #0; otherwise, the initial DL BWP is provided by initialDownlinkBWP in SIB1 .” Also in para [0046]: “The 4-step RACH can also be used for NR positioning, in a similar to that of the 2-step RACH, as shown in FIG. 3B … SRS configuration. ” ) ; and canceling ( omitted ) a scheduled transmission of an SRS instance of the one or more SRS instances based on determining ( para [0047] All gNBs report the UE Tx-Rx time difference and gNB Tx-Rx time difference measurements to the location server. The transmission of SRS in the 4-step RACH procedure for positioning is optional. If the PRACH preamble bandwidth is large enough to satisfy the Rel-17 positioning requirement, the SRS transmission in the fourth step may be omitted , and the gNBs may use the preamble signal to measure the receive time ") : (A) the SRS BWP and the DL BWP have a common center frequency and a time difference between the receiving of the first message and the scheduled transmission of the SRS instance is less than a first threshold time gap; (B) the SRS BWP and a BWP of a second message have the common center frequency and a time difference between the scheduled transmission of the SRS instance and the second message is less than the first threshold time gap; (C) the SRS BWP and the DL BWP have different center frequencies and the time difference between the receiving of the first message and the scheduled transmission of the SRS instance is less than an SRS switching time of the UE; (D) the SRS BWP and the BWP of the second message have the different center frequencies and the time difference between the scheduled transmission of the SRS instance and the second message is less than the SRS switching time of the UE ; or (E) a Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH) has been transmitted by the UE ( para [0047] All gNBs report the UE Tx-Rx time difference and gNB Tx-Rx time difference measurements to the location server. The transmission of SRS in the 4-step RACH procedure for positioning is optional. If the PRACH preamble bandwidth is large enough to satisfy the Rel-17 positioning requirement, the SRS transmission in the fourth step may be omitted , and the gNBs may use the preamble signal to measure the receive time " . It is noted that the claim is drafted in an alternative format not requiring all recitations but one of the recitations ) ; wherein the first threshold time gap is shorter than the SRS switching time of the UE and the second message comprises a second DL message from the TRP or a UL message from the UE . For argument’s sake, let’s say that Zhou fails to explicitly disclose the claim limitation of “ canceling a scheduled transmission of an SRS instance of the one or more SRS instances based on determining (E) a Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH) has been transmitted by the UE .” Nevertheless, such limitation lacks thereof from Zhou’s teaching is well-known in the art and taught by Intel. In an analogous art in the same field of endeavor, Intel, on page 1, section 1 Introduction, provides overview of contribution on NR-Positioning in RRC_INACTIVE state and on-demand DL PRS support, comprising, among other things, the limitations of canceling a scheduled transmission of an SRS instance of the one or more SRS instances based on determining ( page 19: “in such a case, the SRS, transmitted outside of the UL BWP, should not be transmitted ” ) (E) a Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH) has been transmitted by the UE ( page 19: “A UE can access/transmit in that UL bandwidth after a regular RACH-based procedure (e.g. msg3). In such a case, the SRS, transmitted outside the UL BWP, should not be transmitted .”). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine /combine Intel’s teaching into Zhou’s teaching to arrive the claim invention. A motivation for doing so would be to overcome of the shortfalls of the prior art in dealing with problem of having “2 active BWPs” ( Intel, page 19 ). Regarding claim 2 , in addition to features recited in base claim 1 (see rationales discussed above), Zhou in view of Intel also renders obvious the claim limitation of “ wherein the first threshold time gap is based on an subcarrier spacing (SCS) configuration of the UL BWP or a separate SCS configuration provided to the UE ( Z hou; para [0008]: “… the SRS timing parameter specifying a number of slots … the number of slots .” Or Zhou; para [0048]: "The PRS bandwidth is defined by the higher layer parameter dl-PRS- ResourceBandwidth , which has the range of 4 resource blocks (RBs) to 272 RBs with granularity of 4 RBs. On the other hand, the maximum PRS bandwidth is bounded by the maximum UE channel bandwidth for each SCS. Thus the maximum value of PRS bandwidth for each sub-carrier spacing (SCS) is given in the table of FIG. 4A. The configured bandwidth of the PRS for positioning in RRC Idle and Inactive states can be larger than the initial BWP . One option for positioning using the RACH procedure is to use the PRACH preamble for the Rx timing measurement at the gNB . For high accuracy positioning, the preamble bandwidth should be as large as possible. In Rel-16, the SRS bandwidth can range from 4 to 272 resource blocks (RBs) with granularity of 4 RBs. According to some example embodiments, the maximum preamble bandwidth may be no smaller than that of the maximum bandwidth of SRS, which is 272 RBs . " Or Intel; page 19: “… the SRS should be associated with the initial UL BWP, as any other regular SRS is associated with an UL BWP, and inherit SCS/CP/BW reference from the UL BWP … . ” ) . Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine /combine Intel’s teaching into Zhou’s teaching to arrive the claim invention for the same rationale as above discussed. Regarding claim 3 , in addition to features recited in base claim 2 (see rationales discussed above), Zhou in view of Intel also renders obvious the claim limitation of wherein the first threshold time gap ( SRS timing parameters ) is based on a number of one or more symbols ( a number of slots ) in an orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) communication scheme ( Z hou; para [0008]: “… the SRS timing parameter specifying a number of slots … the number of slots .” Or Zhou; para [0048]: "The PRS bandwidth is defined by the higher layer parameter dl-PRS- ResourceBandwidth , which has the range of 4 resource blocks (RBs) to 272 RBs with granularity of 4 RBs. On the other hand, the maximum PRS bandwidth is bounded by the maximum UE channel bandwidth for each SCS. Thus the maximum value of PRS bandwidth for each sub-carrier spacing (SCS) is given in the table of FIG. 4A. The configured bandwidth of the PRS for positioning in RRC Idle and Inactive states can be larger than the initial BWP . One option for positioning using the RACH procedure is to use the PRACH preamble for the Rx timing measurement at the gNB . For high accuracy positioning, the preamble bandwidth should be as large as possible. In Rel-16, the SRS bandwidth can range from 4 to 272 resource blocks (RBs) with granularity of 4 RBs. According to some example embodiments, the maximum preamble bandwidth may be no smaller than that of the maximum bandwidth of SRS, which is 272 RBs . " Or Intel; page 19: “… the SRS should be associated with the initial UL BWP, as any other regular SRS is associated with an UL BWP, and inherit SCS/CP/BW reference from the UL BWP … . ” ) . Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine /combine Intel’s teaching into Zhou’s teaching to arrive the claim invention for the same rationale as above discussed. Regarding claim 10 , in addition to features recited in base claim 1 (see rationales discussed above), Zhou in view of Intel also renders obvious the claim limitation of c anceling transmission of all SRS instances of the one or more SRS instances subsequent to the scheduled transmission of the SRS instance ( page 19: “in such a case, the SRS, transmitted outside of the UL BWP, should not be transmitted ” ) (E) a Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH) has been transmitted by the UE ( page 19: “A UE can access/transmit in that UL bandwidth after a regular RACH-based procedure (e.g. msg3). In such a case, the SRS, transmitted outside the UL BWP, should not be transmitted .”). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine /combine Intel’s teaching into Zhou’s teaching to arrive the claim invention for the same rationale as above discussed. Regarding claim 11 , in addition to features recited in base claim 1 (see rationales discussed above), Zhou in view of Intel also renders obvious the claim limitation of wherein the SRS comprises an SRS for positioning ( Zhou; para [0007]: "In some embodiments, the uplink reference signal is a positioning sounding reference signal (SRS) ." Or Intel; page 1, section 2.1.1 NR Positioning in RRC_INACTIVE State; “SRS for positioning” ). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine /combine Intel’s teaching into Zhou’s teaching to arrive the claim invention for the same rationale as above discussed. Regarding claim 1 2 , in addition to features recited in base claim 1 (see rationales discussed above), Zhou in view of Intel also renders obvious the claim limitation of wherein the unconnected state comprises a Radio Resource Control (RRC) Idle state, an RRC Inactive state, or a Discontinuous Reception (DRX) state ( Zhou; para [0035]: “… the UE is the RRC Idle state or in the RRC Inactive state … position of the UE. ” Or Intel; page 24; section 3.4 Aspect #4: Relationship with DRX; “… UE DRX and NR positioning in RRC_INACTIVE state … . ”). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate/combine /combine Intel’s teaching into Zhou’s teaching to arrive the claim invention for the same rationale as above discussed. As per claims 13-15 and 22-24 , the claims appear to call for a user equipment having limitations variously and essentially mirrored functional limitations of method claims 1-3 and 10-12, respectively. Thus, they are deemed obvious over Zhou in view of Intel for the same rationales applied to method claims 1-3 and 10-12 as above discussed. As per claims 25-27 , the claims appear to call for an apparatus having limitations variously and essentially mirrored functional limitations of method claims 1-3, respectively. Thus, they are deemed obvious over Zhou in view of Intel for the same rationales applied to method claims 1-3 as above discussed. As per claim 30 , the claim appears to call for a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions having limitations variously and essentially mirrored functional limitations of method claim 1. Thus, it is deemed obvious over Zhou in view of Intel for the same rationales applied to claim 1 as above discussed. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-9, 16-21, and 28-29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, appears to fail to fairly show or suggest a claim invention of base claims 1, 13, and 25 and further limits with novel and unobvious limitations of “ wherein canceling the scheduled transmission of the SRS instance based on the SRS BWP and the BWP of the second message have different center frequencies and the time difference between the scheduled transmission of the SRS instance and the second message is less than the SRS switching time of the UE, and wherein the method further comprises determining a time of the second message based on decoding the first message at the UE ,” as recited in claims 4-9; “ determine a time of the second message based on decoding the first message at the UE when canceling the scheduled transmission of the SRS instance based on the determination that the SRS BWP and the BWP of the second message have different center frequencies and the time difference between the scheduled transmission of the SRS instance and the second message is less than the SRS switching time of the UE ,” as recited in claims 16-21; and “ means for determining a time of the second message based on decoding the first message at the UE when canceling the scheduled transmission of the SRS instance based on the determination that the SRS BWP and the BWP of the second message have different center frequencies and the time difference between the scheduled transmission of the SRS instance and the second message is less than the SRS switching time of the UE ,” as recited in claims 28-29, structurally and functionally interconnected in a manner as claimed. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hwang et al. (US 2013/0083683). Wang et al. (US 2022/0399976). Kim (US 2023/0308236). Kim (US 2023/0379110). Li et al. (US 2023/0180080). Kim (US 11,863,490). Kim (US 11,985,623). Cha et al. (US 2024/0259150). Okamura et al. (US 2024/0057031). Lee et al. (US 2024/0407046). Khoryaev et al. (US 2024/0414683). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT FRANK DUONG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3164 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:00AM-3:30PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL THIER can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-2832 . 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. Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03. /FRANK DUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 March 24, 2026