DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to 7/8/2024.
Claims 1-18 and 31-42 are pending.
Claims 1, 10, 31, and 40 are rejected.
Claims 2-9, 11-18, 32-39, and 41-42 are objected to.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 7/8/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/16/2024 and 6/5/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“UE” in Claim 1, line 1 should be written as user equipment (UE) as it is the first instance of the acronym being used in the claims. Claims 2-9 are objected to by the virtue of its dependency on claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The originally filed specification provides the description necessary to support the limitations of claims 40-42. The corresponding structure, material, or acts is described in the specification itself in a way that one skilled in the art will understand what structure will perform the recited function. Each “means for” feature shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claims 1, 10, 31, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Si et al. US 20220052813 A1, hereinafter Si, in view of ZTE, “Discussion on potential NR positioning enhancements”, R1-2007755 (as cited in IDS), hereinafter ZTE.
Regarding Claim 1, Si discloses a UE (Si Fig. 1: Terminal 11; Fig. 22: Terminal 2200) comprising:
a transceiver; a memory; and a processor, communicatively coupled to the memory and the transceiver (Si Fig. 22: Terminal 2200), configured to:
receive, via the transceiver from a network entity, an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing positioning reference signal (OFDM PRS) comprising a first set of first OFDM symbols that are consecutive and include a first center symbol and at least one pair of first side symbols disposed symmetrically about the first center symbol and having identical resource element sounding patterns (Si [0079] SRS resource on an orthogonal frequency division multiplex (OFDM) symbol; [0125] It should be noted that an uplink resource used for positioning may not be limited to the SRS, and may also be other uplink positioning reference signals or uplink positioning resources; Figs. 7-8: discloses at least one pair of PRS symbols symmetrically disposed around a PRS symbol in the middle).
Si fails to explicitly disclose the UE configured to: combine the first side symbols in each of the at least one pair of first side symbols to produce at least one first combined symbol; and determine a measurement of the received OFDM PRS based on the at least one first combined symbol and the first center symbol.
However, in the same field of endeavor, ZTE more specifically discloses the UE configured to:
combine the first side symbols in each of the at least one pair of first side symbols to produce at least one first combined symbol; and determine a measurement of the received OFDM PRS based on the at least one first combined symbol and the first center symbol (ZTE section 3.1: comb-2 4-symbol pattern where the last two symbols are the repetition of first two symbols; combination gain of different repetitions; see also Figure 2 and Proposal 2: discloses a comparison of two patterns and the UE determines a measurement based on the PRS pattern; sections 4 and 5: also discloses measurements related to positioning a terminal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Si with the teachings of ZTE for enhancements to NR positioning for accuracy and latency.
Claims 10, 31, and 40 are rejected on the same grounds set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Claims 10, 31, and 40 recite similar features as in claim 1 for a method, NCRM, and an apparatus of a UE, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9, 11-18, 32-39, and 41-42 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yu et al. US 20250088328 A1
Si US 20220231816 A1
Stare et al. US 20220116169 A1
Ernstrom et al. US 20220086787 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEWON KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-6524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, GARY MUI can be reached at (571)270-1420. 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.
/Y.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/GARY MUI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights