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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4,6-9,11-14,16-23,25-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge (US 20200154240) in view of Ghanbarinejad (US 20230199685).
Re claim 1:
Edge discloses a method of utilizing modified Reference Signal Time Difference (RSTD) reporting for (Para.[0044] With a UE assisted position method, UE 105 may obtain location measurements and send the measurements to a location server (e.g. LMF 120 or SLP 129) for computation of a location estimate for UE 105):
receiving, at the location server from the UE, a report message comprising RSTD measurement information of an RSTD measurement, performed by the UE, of radio frequency (RF) signals (Fig.2 ref. 12. LPP Provide Location Information and Para.[0076] At stage 12, the UE 105 sends an LPP Provide Location Information message to the LMF 120 and includes the PRS measurements (and any other measurements) obtained at stage 10 or the UE location obtained at stage 11 and Para.[0046] In the case of OTDOA, the LPP or NPP message may instruct the UE 105 to obtain one or more measurements (e.g. RSTD measurements) of PRS signals transmitted within particular cells supported by particular gNBs 110 and/or ng-eNB 114), wherein:
at least one RF signal of the RF signals is transmitted by an (Para.[0046] In the case of OTDOA, the LPP or NPP message may instruct the UE 105 to obtain one or more measurements (e.g. RSTD measurements) of PRS signals transmitted within particular cells supported by particular gNBs 110 and/or ng-eNB 114 (or supported by some other type of base station such as an eNB or WiFi AP)), and
the RSTD measurement information comprises an offset of at least one subframe duration to compensate for a delay in the at least one RF signal (Para.[0143] In some embodiments, when a UE 105 receives a PRS configuration index I.sub.PRS in the assistance data for a particular cell, the UE 105 may determine the PRS periodicity T.sub.PRS and PRS subframe offset A.sub.PRS using Table 1. The UE 105 may then determine the radio frame, subframe and slot when a PRS is scheduled in the cell (e.g., using equation (1)) and Para.[0154] A UE 105 may determine the timing of the PRS occasions (e.g., in an LTE network or a 5G NR network such as that in communication system 100) of the reference and neighbor cells for positioning (e.g. using OTDOA, RTT and/or AOD), if the UE 105 can obtain the cell timing (e.g., SFN or Frame Number) of at least one of the cells, e.g., the reference cell or a serving cell (which may be performed at stage 10 of FIG. 2, or stage 10 of FIG. 3).)
determining, at the location server, a position of the UE based at least in part on the RSTD measurement information (Fig. 2 ref. 13 Determine UE Location).
Edge does not explicitly disclose NTN NG-RAN.
Ghanbarinejad discloses NTN NG-RAN (Fig.7 and Para.[0017] FIG. 7 illustrates an example transparent satellite-based NG-RAN architecture that supports positioning in an NTN in accordance with aspects of the present disclosure).
Edge and Ghanbarinejad are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edge to include NTN NG-RAN as taught by Ghanbarinejad in order to perform low-latency radio positioning (Ghanbarinejad Para.[0005]).
Re claim 2:
Edge discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the offset comprises an integer value in milliseconds or a subframe set multiplier (Para.[0143] In some embodiments, when a UE 105 receives a PRS configuration index I.sub.PRS in the assistance data for a particular cell, the UE 105 may determine the PRS periodicity T.sub.PRS and PRS subframe offset A.sub.PRS using Table 1).
Re claim 3:
Edge discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to receiving the report message at the location server, sending assistance data from the location server to the UE (Fig.2 ref. 8. LPP Provide Assistance Data).
Re claim 4:
Edge discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the assistance data comprises a value for expected RSTD and a value for expected RSTD uncertainty (Para.[0138] In some embodiments, assistance data (e.g. for OTDOA) may also include “expected RSTD” parameters, which provide the UE 105 with information about the RSTD values the UE 105 is expected to measure at its current location between the reference cell and each neighbor cell, together with an uncertainty of the expected RSTD parameter).
Re claim 6:
As discussed above Edge in view of Ghanbarinejad meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Edge does not explicitly disclose method of claim 4, further comprising including, in the assistance data, a resolution value for expected RSTD uncertainty, wherein the resolution value is based on a determination that NTN positioning is being performed.
Ghanbarinejad discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising including, in the assistance data, a resolution value for expected RSTD uncertainty, wherein the resolution value is based on a determination that NTN positioning is being performed (Para. [0026] FIG. 16 illustrates an example of an NTN expected RSTD window and uncertainty on a same frequency layer, as related to positioning in an NTN in accordance with aspects of the present disclosure [0027] FIG. 17 illustrates an example of an NTN expected RSTD window and uncertainty on a different frequency layer, as related to positioning in an NTN in accordance with aspects of the present disclosure and Para.[0090] For example, T.sub.s=1/(15000×2048) for a NR NTN with Δf.sub.max=15 kHz and N.sub.FFT=2048 as the subcarrier spacing and FFT size, respectively. In some implementations, the subcarrier spacing may be associated with FR1 frequencies, such as 30 kHz and 60 kHz, while in other implementations, the subcarrier spacing may be associated with FR2 frequencies, such as 120 kHz and 240 kHz. The parameter N.sub.PRS-Offset may be configured and signaled by the LMF. Resolution R may be fixed in the specification, configured and/or signaled by the network, determined by a UE implementation, or a combination thereof).
Edge and Ghanbarinejad are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edge to include NTN NG-RAN as taught by Ghanbarinejad in order to perform low-latency radio positioning (Ghanbarinejad Para.[0005]).
Re claim 7:
As discussed above Edge in view of Ghanbarinejad meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Edge does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 3, further comprising including, in the assistance data, expected RSTD drift values and a validity duration of the expected RSTD drift values, wherein the expected RSTD drift values comprise an expected RSTD drift and an expected RSTD drift rate.
Ghanbarinejad discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising including, in the assistance data, expected RSTD drift values and a validity duration of the expected RSTD drift values, wherein the expected RSTD drift values comprise an expected RSTD drift and an expected RSTD drift rate (Para. [0110] In an implementation, the delay value may be configured by the network, for example, with parameters of a positioning configuration. However, since the propagation delay is variable as the NTN TP moves, the delay value may be updated by later configuration messages, or may be associated with an expiration time. The UE may then apply the delay value before the value is expired. A positioning configuration may include the delay value, as well as a drift rate associated with the delay value. The UE may then apply the delay value drift rate in order to update the delay value over time. In another implementation, the delay value may be signaled by the gNB, which may be integrated with the NTN TP in an NTN architecture based on a regenerative payload).
Edge and Ghanbarinejad are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edge to include drift values as taught by Ghanbarinejad in order to perform low-latency radio positioning (Ghanbarinejad Para.[0005]).
Re claim 8:
As discussed above Edge in view of Ghanbarinejad meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Edge does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 7, wherein sending the assistance data is responsive to: (i) a request for the expected RSTD drift values sent to the location server from the UE, or (ii) an error message sent to the location server from the UE, wherein the error message comprises an indication that a previous validity duration corresponding to previous expected RSTD drift values has expired.
Ghanbarinejad discloses the method of claim 7, wherein sending the assistance data is responsive to: (i) a request for the expected RSTD drift values sent to the location server from the UE, or (ii) an error message sent to the location server from the UE, wherein the error message comprises an indication that a previous validity duration corresponding to previous expected RSTD drift values has expired (Para.[0067] Alternatively at step 1c, the UE 104 requests a location service, such as for the positioning or delivery of assistance data, to the serving AMF 508 at the non-access-stratum (NAS) level and Para. [0110] In an implementation, the delay value may be configured by the network, for example, with parameters of a positioning configuration. However, since the propagation delay is variable as the NTN TP moves, the delay value may be updated by later configuration messages, or may be associated with an expiration time. The UE may then apply the delay value before the value is expired. A positioning configuration may include the delay value, as well as a drift rate associated with the delay value. The UE may then apply the delay value drift rate in order to update the delay value over time. In another implementation, the delay value may be signaled by the gNB, which may be integrated with the NTN TP in an NTN architecture based on a regenerative payload).
Edge and Ghanbarinejad are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edge to include drift values as taught by Ghanbarinejad in order to perform low-latency radio positioning (Ghanbarinejad Para.[0005]).
Re claim 9:
Edge discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the offset is specific to a positioning reference signal (PRS) resource or a Transmission Reception Point (TRP) (Para.[0143] In some embodiments, when a UE 105 receives a PRS configuration index I.sub.PRS in the assistance data for a particular cell, the UE 105 may determine the PRS periodicity T.sub.PRS and PRS subframe offset A.sub.PRS using Table 1).
Re claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1 from the perspective of the UE.
Re claim 12: Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 13: Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3 from the perspective of the UE.
Re claim 14: Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Re claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 8 from the perspective of the UE.
Re claim 19: Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 9.
Re claim 20: Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1. Edge further discloses a transceiver; a memory; and one or more processors (Fig. 11-13).
Re claim 21: Claim 21 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 22: Claim 22 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 23: Claim 23 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 25: Claim 25 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
Re claim 26: Claim 26 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Re claim 27: Claim 27 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 8.
Re claim 28: Claim 28 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1 from the perspective of the UE. Edge further discloses a transceiver; a memory; and one or more processors (Fig. 11-13).
Re claim 29: Claim 29 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 30: Claim 30 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3 from the perspective of the UE.
Claim(s) 5,15, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge (US 20200154240) in view of Ghanbarinejad (US 20230199685) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Manolakos (US 20200228381).
Re claim 5:
As discussed above Edge in view of Ghanbarinejad meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Edge does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 4, wherein: the value for the expected RSTD is provided using: at least one or more additional bits, or a field indicative of a value corresponding to the expected RSTD rounded to a number of subframes; and the value for the expected RSTD uncertainty is provided using: at least one or more additional bits, or a field indicative of a value corresponding to the expected RSTD uncertainty rounded to a current range.
Manolakos discloses the method of claim 4, wherein: the value for the expected RSTD is provided using: at least one or more additional bits, or a field indicative of a value corresponding to the expected RSTD rounded to a number of subframes (Para.[0133] For example, Table 4 shows expected RSTD ranges and the differences in distance when the expectedRSTD parameter is encoded using 14 bits); and
the value for the expected RSTD uncertainty is provided using: at least one or more additional bits, or a field indicative of a value corresponding to the expected RSTD uncertainty rounded to a current range (Para.[0134] As another example, Table 5 shows expected RSTD uncertainties and the differences in uncertainty distance when the expectedRSTD parameter is encoded using 10 bits).
Edge and Manolakos are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edge to include encoding the expected RSTD and uncertainty using bits as taught by Manolakos in order to use well-known way of communicating information and to improve hearability of PRS (Manolakos Para.[0108]).
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5.
Re claim 24: Claim 24 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge (US 20200154240) in view of Ghanbarinejad (US 20230199685) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Si (US 20240284390).
Re claim 10:
As discussed above Edge in view of Ghanbarinejad meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Edge does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the offset is determined by the location server based on values for expected RSTD and expected RSTD uncertainty.
Si discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the offset is determined by the location server based on values for expected RSTD and expected RSTD uncertainty (Para.[0081] The time information of the non-serving cell includes at least one of the following: [0082] an expected reference signal time difference and uncertainty between the non-serving cell and a reference cell or the first network device (for example, a base station), or an offset between a system frame number 0 (System Frame Number 0, SFN0) of a PRS search window (expected Reference Signal Time Difference (RSTD)±uncertainty)); and
Edge and Si are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edge to include an offset based on expected RSTD as taught by Si in order to improve positioning performance (Si Para.[0045]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cui (US 20220179033) shows determining and reporting RSTD.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD SAJID ADHAMI whose telephone number is (571)272-8615. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights