DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the pending claims, 1-5, 7-10, 12-16, 18-21, received 12 April 2024. Claims 2 and 13 have been canceled. Accordingly, the detailed action of claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12, 13-16, 18-21 and 24-25 is as follows:
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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10 , 12, 14-16, 18-21, 24-25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (WO 2022184227 A1, hereafter referred to as Wang) in view of Shin et al (US 20230034336 A1, hereafter referred to as Shin).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a reporting method performed by a network device, comprising:
receiving parameter information reported by a communication device (Wang [pg 20:15-19] teaches a Location Management Function, LMF, obtaining location reference information of a UE, the location reference information consisting of capability information and location information and the location reference information obtained from the UE [21:31 and Fig 3-302]), wherein the parameter information comprises at least one of indication information and/or or capability information (Wang [21:25-27] teaches the location reference information includes capability information and location information, wherein the capability information includes a plurality of information elements [18-19:2-24] including an indication of a location reference UE identity indicating whether the UE is manufactured as a location reference [19:9-10], whether the UE is capable of providing a position reference [19:13-15] and positioning methods supported [19:15]), and the indication information is configured to indicate that the communication device is a positioning reference unit (PRU) (Wang [18-19:2-24] teaches the capability information includes a plurality of information elements, including an indication of a location reference UE identity indicating whether the UE is manufactured as a location reference [19:9-10], whether the UE is capable of providing a position reference [19:13-15] and positioning methods supported [19:15]);
wherein the capability information comprises at least one of:
the communication device supporting reporting a known position of the communication device (Wang [19:1-10]);
the communication device supporting reporting antenna information of the communication device (Wang [18:11-14 and 18:28-32]);
a change situation of the known position of the communication device (Wang [19:11] teaches a validity duration for location information); or
a movement state of the communication device (Wang [19:5-6]).
However, Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the known position of the communication device is a position of the communication device that is known by the communication device, and is not a position calculated by the communication device based on a positioning function of the communication device.
Shin, in an analogous art, teaches wherein the known position of the communication device is a position of the communication device that is known by the communication device, and is not a position calculated by the communication device based on a positioning function of the communication device (Shin [0088] teaches a terminal includes a positioning reference unit for which the location of the terminal is known, whereby the terminal, the location of which is already known, is referred to as an anchor terminal positioned at a known location and provides corresponding information for measurement location [0089, 0088] such that the anchor terminal acts as a measurement source [0102]).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Wang in view of Shin in order to configure the supporting reporting a known position of the communication device, as taught by Wang, to include a position of the communication device that is known by the communication device, and is not a position calculated by the communication device based on a positioning function of the communication device, as taught by Shin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to select a source suitable for location measurement for positioning to improve the accuracy of the positioning (Shin [0147] teaches selecting a reliable measurement source when positioning is performed is an important factor to improve the accuracy of positioning [0147, 0047]).
Regarding claim 3, Wang-Shin teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Wang-Shin teaches a method wherein receiving the parameter information reported by the communication device comprises: receiving the parameter information reported by the communication device through a Mobile Original-Location Request (MO-LR) request message (Wang [24:8-9] teaches a MO-LRR requested by a location reference UE to become a location reference) or a Long Term Evolution Positioning Protocol (LPP) Provide capability message (Wang [Fig 3, 20:16-17 and 21:31] teaches the location reference information is obtained from the UE by the LMF using LPP).
Regarding claim 4, Wang-Shin teaches the limitations of claim 3, as rejected above.
Additionally, Wang-Shin teaches a method wherein receiving the parameter information reported by the communication device through the MO-LR request message comprises at least one of: receiving the parameter information included in the MO-LR request message (Wang [26:3335] teaches the UE sends a MO-LR request message requesting to become a location reference); or receiving the parameter information included in a Long Term Evolution Positioning Protocol Packet Data Unit (LPP PDU) of the MO-LR request message.
Regarding claim 5, Wang-Shin teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Wang-Shin teaches a method further comprising:
sending a Long Term Evolution Positioning Protocol (LPP) request capability message to the communication device, wherein the LPP request capability message is configured to request the communication device to report the parameter information (Wang [Fig 3 and 21:20-34] teaches obtaining UE capability location information by the LMF using LPP).
Regarding claim 7, Wang-Shin teaches the limitations of claim 3, as rejected above.
Additionally, Wang-Shin teaches a method further comprising:
sending an LPP request location information message to the communication device (Wang [21:32]), wherein the LPP request location information message is configured to request the communication device to report at least one of a known position of the communication device and/or or antenna information of the communication device (Wang [21:32] teaches transmitting a LPP request for location information from the LMF to UE).
Regarding claim 8, Wang-Shin teaches the limitations of claim 7, as rejected above.
Additionally, Wang-Shin teaches a method wherein sending the LPP request location information message to the communication device comprises: in response to a periodic change or no change in the known position of the communication device, sending the LPP request location information message to the communication device (Wang [21:32] teaches transmitting a LPP request for location information to the UE from the LMF).
Regarding claim 9, Wang-Shin teaches the limitations of claim 8, as rejected above.
Additionally, Wang-Shin teaches a method further comprising: receiving at least one of the known position of the communication device and/or the antenna information of the communication device reported by the communication device (Wang [21:33] teaches the UE providing the location information to the LMF via LPP).
Regarding claim 10, Wang-Shin teaches the limitations of claim 9, as rejected above.
Additionally, Wang-Shin teaches a method wherein receiving at least one of the known position of the communication device and/or or the antenna information of the communication device reported by the communication device comprises: receiving at least one of the known position of the communication device and/or the antenna information of the communication device reported by the communication device through an LPP provide location information message (Wang [21:33] teaches the UE providing the location information to the LMF via LPP).
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the features of claim 1 from the perspective of the sender (UE), rather than the recipient (network device), such that the reporting steps of claim 12 correspond to the receiving steps of claim 1. It would have been obvious to modify Wang in view of Shin according to the reasons set forth above regarding claim 1. The claim does not recite any additional features, teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claims 14-16 and 18-20, they do not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claims 3-5 and 7-10.
Therefore, claims 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 3-5 and 7-10.
Regarding claim 21, Wang-Shin teaches the limitations of claim 12, as rejected above.
Additionally, Wang-Shin teaches the method wherein the communication device comprises a user equipment (UE) or a PRU (Wang [19:9-10 and 19:13] teaches a location reference UE or a UE with a location reference UE identity indicating the UE is manufactured as a location reference unit).
Regarding claim 24, Wang-Shin teaches a communication network device comprising:
a processor (Wang [39:19-30]; and
a memory having a computer program stored thereon (Wang [45:6-12]).
It would have been obvious to modify Wang in view of Shin according to the reasons set forth above regarding claim 1.
The claim does not recite any additional features, nor teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 1. Therefore, claim 24 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 25, Wang-Shin teaches a terminal device, comprising:
a processor (Wang [38:19-25]); and
a memory having a computer program stored thereon (Wang [45:6-12]).
It would have been obvious to modify Wang in view of Shin according to the reasons set forth above regarding claim 12.
The claim does not recite any additional features, nor teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 12. Therefore, claim 24 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended feature “wherein the known position of the communication device is a position of the communication device that is known by the communication device, and is not a position calculated by the communication device based on a positioning function of the communication device” have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Furthermore, regarding claim 1, applicant argues:
“Wang's "capability information" relates to physical layer parameters for
positioning measurement (supported frequency bands, number of frequency layers,
types of positioning measurements, number of antenna reference points, etc.); physical
layer parameters for positioning reference signal transmission; and location
determination capability (whether the UE can calculate another UE's position) (See
Wang page 18 line 2 - page 19 line 15). However, Wang's capability information does
not include any of the following features "the communication device supporting
reporting a known position of the communication device; the communication device
supporting reporting antenna information of the communication device; a change
situation of the known position of the communication device; or a movement state of the
communication device." Therefore, Wang does not disclose or suggest "the capability
information comprises at least one of: the communication device supporting reporting a
known position of the communication device; the communication device supporting
reporting antenna information of the communication device; a change situation of the
known position of the communication device; or a movement state of the
communication device," as recited in amended claim 1.” Remarks pg 13-14
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” >The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard.
Although< claims of issued patents are interpreted in light of the specification, prosecution history, prior art and other claims, this is not the mode of claim interpretation to be applied during examination. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during\ examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation >in light of the specification<.). This means that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless **>the plain meaning is inconsistent with< the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (discussed below); Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application. Phillips v. AWH Corp.,*>415 F.3d 1303, 1313<, 75 USPQ2d 1321>, 1326< (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, >including “the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.”< Phillips v. AWH Corp., *>415 F.3d at 1314<, 75 USPQ2d **>at 1327.< If extrinsic reference sources, such as dictionaries, evidence more than one definition for the term, the intrinsic record must be consulted to identify which of the different possible definitions is most consistent with applicant’s use of the terms. Brookhill-Wilk 1, 334 F. 3d at 1300, 67 USPQ2d at 1137; see also Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa ' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250, 48 USPQ2d 1117, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites in part, “wherein the capability information comprises at least one of: the communication device supporting reporting a known position of the communication device; the communication device supporting reporting antenna information of the communication device; a change situation of the known position of the communication device; or a movement state of the communication device” which based upon broadest reasonable interpretation indicates the capability comprises one of the UE supporting position reporting, the UE supporting antenna information reporting, a change in the position of the UE or a movement of the UE. Wang teaches the capability comprises one of the UE supporting position reporting (Wang [19: 1-10] teaches the UE indicating location information including coordinates, orientation, velocity, bearing), the UE supporting antenna information reporting (Wang [18:11-14 and 18:28-34] teaches a UE indicating ARP capabilities and corresponding parameters), a change in the position of the UE or a movement of the UE (Wang [19:5-6] teaches indicating velocity, speed and bearing).
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 SHEAN TOKUTA whose telephone number is (571)272-5145. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 630-430.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 5712727952. 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.
SHEAN TOKUTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2446
/SHEAN TOKUTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights