DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
2. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 07/09/2026. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 13, and 16-24 are pending in this application and have been considered below. Claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, 12 and 14-15 are canceled by applicant.
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 6 and 11 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection because of the amendments.
4. 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.
Please note: Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, and figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teaching of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicants are reminded that MPEP 2141.02 states:
A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 13, 16, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIN et al. (US 20230042138) (hereinafter Shin) in view of Rao et al. (US 20240192304) (hereinafter Rao).
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 11:
As shown in figures 1-9, Shin discloses an apparatus (see figure 8) for wireless communication (see wireless communication figures 1-2, 4-7), comprising a processor (806 in figure 8) that when configured implements a method that causes the apparatus (par 0135) to:
communicate a configuration information for a sidelink positioning (see figure 2) (par 0009-0010, 0047),
wherein the communicating is from a first wireless communication device (UE-1 in figure 1) to a second wireless communication device (UE-2 in figure 1) (par 0047), and
wherein the configuration information is transmitted through at least one controlling signaling information (see PC5-RRC control signaling in par 0047).
Shin also teaches “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having code stored thereupon” as recited in claim 11 (par 0027).
Shin discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching wherein the configuration information comprising resource ID, and a list of sorted resources.
However, Rao in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the configuration information comprising resource ID, and a list of sorted resources (par 0122-0123).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use resource ID as taught by Rao to modify the system and method of Shin in order to determine positioning uncertainty (par 0072) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Regarding claims 3, 8 and 13:
Shin further discloses wherein the at least one controlling signaling information is transmitted using a higher layer signaling, a radio resource control (RRC) signaling, or sidelink control information (SCI) (par 0108).
Regarding claims 16, 19 and 22:
Shin further discloses retransmitting a sidelink positioning reference signal (SL-PRS) sequence information, based on a request from the second wireless communication device (par 0034) or from a third wireless communication device, or based on a threshold time range.
8. Claims 17-18, 20-21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHIN in view of Rao as applied to claims 16, 19 and 22 above and further in view of BAO et al. (US 20240365278) (hereinafter Bao).
Regarding claims 17, 20 and 23:
Shin and Rao disclose all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching wherein the retransmitting is based on an SL-PRS sequence attempt corresponding to a first transmission SL-PRS sequence.
However, Bao in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the retransmitting is based on an SL-PRS sequence attempt corresponding to a first transmission SL-PRS sequence (par 0014, 0339, 0419).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use resource ID as taught by Rao to modify the system and method of Shin in order to detect a PRS sequence collision associated with the transmitted sidelink PRS and select a different PRS sequence for PRS retransmission in response to the detected PRS sequence collision (par 0369) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Regarding claims 18, 21 and 24:
Shin and Rao disclose all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching wherein the retransmitting is based on an SL-PRS sequence attempt corresponding to a first transmission group identification.
However, Bao in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the retransmitting is based on an SL-PRS sequence attempt corresponding to a first transmission group identification (selecting different PRS sequence for PRS retransmission interpreted to be SL-PRS sequence attempt corresponding to a first transmission group identification. See par 0339, 0419).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use resource ID as taught by Rao to modify the system and method of Shin in order to detect a PRS sequence collision associated with the transmitted sidelink PRS and select a different PRS sequence for PRS retransmission in response to the detected PRS sequence collision (par 0369) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oteri et al. (US 20260052503) disclose a method for round trip time (RTT) sidelink positioning in 5G NR systems.
10. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KABIR A TIMORY whose telephone number is (571)270-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00 AM-3:00 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, Hannah S Wang can be reached at 571-272-9018. 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.
/KABIR A TIMORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights