DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment filed 7/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-15 have been cancelled.
Claims 16-28 are newly added and remain pending.
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.
Claims 16-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huawei et al., “Discussion on INACTIVE state positioning and on-demand PRS”, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #107-e; R1-2111932; hereafter Huawei, in view of Vivo, “Remaining issues on inactive state positioning and on-demand PRS”, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #107-e; R1-2111018.
Regarding claims 16 and 23,
Huawei discloses a UE (Section 2.1; “For RRC_INACTIVE UEs…”) comprising at least one transceiver, at least one processor coupled with the transceiver and at least one memory coupled to the processor storing instructions executable by the processor (inherent) in a wireless communication system to perform a method comprising receiving, from a base station (i.e. RAN1), configuration information on a SRS resource for positioning outside an initial BWP for transmission of SRS in a RRC inactive mode (Section 2.1, under “Agreement” and Proposal 1, Alt. 1; RAN1 adopts SRS for positioning bandwidth for RRC_INACTIVE UEs that can be different from initial BWP#0) and, identifying that transmission of the SRS in the RRC inactive mode with a time interval associated with the SRS transmission collides in a time domain with a transmission of an uplink signal, and dropping the SRS transmission in a symbol where the collision occurs (Section 2.1 under Proposal 2; if transmission of SRS results in collision with another DL or UL, the SRS transmission is dropped).
Huawei does not expressly disclose a reference signal time interval colliding in a time interval with the transmission of an UL signal in terms of symbols, but analogous art to Vivo related to positioning in inactive state (Section 2) and handling reference signal collisions for RRC_INACTIVE UEs shows a reference signal time interval colliding in a time interval with the transmission of an UL signal in terms of symbols (Section 2.1.2; Fig. 1/case 1-2; PRS collision with other signals/channels; illustrates the colliding portions of PRS and other UL/DL signal in terms of symbols/slot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Huawei by defining a reference signal time interval colliding in a time interval with the transmission of an UL signal in terms of symbols, as shown by Vivo, thereby enabling RRC_INACTIVE UEs to process overlapping signals based on symbol/slot level buffering capability and priority while operating in a low power state.
Regarding claims 17, 19, 24, and 26,
The combination of Huawei and Vivo discloses UE capability reporting per band of switching between SRS Tx and other Tx in (initial) BWP#0 or CG-SDT that can cause collision with other DL reception or UL transmission (Huawei: Section 2.1, proposal 2; Vivo: Section 2.1.1) but does not expressly show comparison to a time interval threshold for determining whether to drop or transmit the first transmission of SRS.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize such that collision results if the time interval between the first and second transmission is less than a threshold, resulting in the signals overlapping in time, whereas collision does not occur if the time interval between the first and second transmissions is larger than a threshold, resulting in no time overlap to allow both transmissions to occur without dropping.
Therefore, claims 2, 5, 10, and 13 are considered obvious based on the cited disclosure of Huawei and knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing.
Regarding claims 18 and 25,
Huawei discloses the second transmission of the uplink signal includes at least one of a CG-SDT or a RA-SDT (Section 2.1 through Proposal 2 refers several times to consideration of switching time between SRS and CG-SDT BWPs).
Regarding claims 20 and 27,
Huawei shows RS resources outside an initial BWP (Huawei: Section 2.1, proposal 2; “If transmission of SRS….results in the collision with other DL reception or UL transmission, the SRS transmission is dropped) but does not expressly disclose identifying that a first reception of a downlink positioning reference signal collides with a second reception of a downlink signal, in case that a portion of the second reception overlaps with starting N symbols before the first reception and ending N symbols after the first reception, where N is a positive integer
However, Vivo discloses DL PRS overlapping with other DL signal (Section 2.1.1, Proposal 1; Inactive UE can process DL PRS outside and inside the initial DL BWP) and identifying that a first reception of a downlink positioning reference signal collides with a second reception of a downlink signal, in case that a portion of the second reception overlaps with starting N symbols before the first reception and ending N symbols after the first reception, where N is a positive integer (Section 2.1.2; Fig. 1-2; UE does not process PRS occupying N symbols/slot in collision with other DL signals based on UE buffer threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Huawei by identifying that a first reception of a downlink positioning reference signal collides with a second reception of a downlink signal, in case that a portion of the second reception overlaps with starting N symbols before the first reception and ending N symbols after the first reception, as shown by Vivo, thereby enabling simultaneous processing of PRS and UL/DL signals for UEs in an inactive, low power state.
Regarding claims 21 and 28,
The combination of Huawei and Vivo discloses the first reception collides with the second reception, in case that a second time interval between an end of the first reception and a start of the second reception or an end of the second reception and a start of the first reception is less than a second threshold (Huawei: see above reasoning from rejection of claims 2, 5, 10, and 13; Vivo: “up to UE buffering capability of symbol/slot level buffering illustrates a threshold time interval that determines collision/overlapping symbol or slot). See motivation above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 6-7 of the Amendment, Applicant contends Huawei fails to teach the “identifying” step of the claims because Huawei instead teaches a switching period in terms of UL transmission collision, which does not concern the teachings relied on for the initial portion of the “identifying” clause of previous claim 1 or new claim 16. Applicant further alleges as unclear how or where Huawei teaches switching between SRS and other transmission in BWP or CGSDT has anything to do with RRC_INACTIVE UEs.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the prior rejections as well as the present rejections above, Huawei clearly discloses the contested “identifying” limitations through express disclosure of “SRS for positioning bandwidth” that can be “different from that of the initial UL BWP configured by system information” (Section 2.1, Proposal 1, Alt. 1) as well as dropping SRS transmission if transmission of SRS results in collision with another transmission or CG-SDT (Section 2.1, Proposal 2, bullet 2). Furthermore, prior art to Vivo now used in combination with Huawei in rejecting the pending claims similarly discloses positioning/sounding and handling reference signal collisions for RRC_INACTIVE UEs in a positioning reference signal time interval colliding in a time interval with the transmission of another signal in terms of symbols (Section 2.1.2; Fig. 1/case 1-2). Further still, both Huawei and Vivo clearly and expressly are shown to apply to “RRC_INACTIVE UEs” throughout both cited documents. For these reasons, the present rejections above based on the combination of Huawei and Vivo are proper.
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 GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. 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.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights