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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 07/01/2026 and 07/29/2026, have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment submitted on June 30, 2026. Claims, 1 - 20 are now currently pending in the present application.
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 non-obviousness.
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 1-20 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Thomas et al. (US 20230296752 A1, hereinafter Thomas) in view of ZHANG et al. (US 20190349280 A1, hereinafter ZHANG).
Consider Claim 1, Thomas discloses A wireless communication method comprising:
communicating, by a first network node with a second network node to determine a measurement, the measurement corresponding to a first round trip; and (paragraph 0152, the LMF 835 configures UE-1 810, UE-2 815 and target UE with the SL-PRS configuration. UE-1 and UE-2 may be RSUs/SL-UEs or VRUs. The one or more additional nodes UE-1 810, UE-2 815 and the target UE 805 report their respective UE Rx-Tx difference measurements to the LMF per beam/SL TRP, which is mainly applicable for UE-assisted positioning. The LMF 835 may compute the distance based on [00002]c(SL-RTT/2), where c is the speed of light and SL-R11 is based on the reported round-trip time).
transmitting, by the first network node, the measurement to a third network node, (Paragraph 0078, UL-TDoA: The UL TDOA positioning method makes use of the UL TDOA (and optionally UL SRS-RSRP) at multiple RPs of uplink signals transmitted from the UE 205. The RPs measure the UL TDOA (and optionally UL SRS-RSRP) of the received signals using assistance data received from the positioning server, and the resulting measurements are used along with other configuration information to estimate the location of the UE 205 (see Table 3)).
Thomas discloses the claimed invention but fail to teach wherein the measurement comprises a timing quality indicative of a quality of the measurement determined by the first network node.
However, ZHANG teaches wherein the measurement comprises a timing quality indicative of a quality of the measurement determined by the first network node. (Paragraph 0166, reads as it is noted that means for receiving, from a wireless node, at least one timing measurement or ranging frame may include at least one of the receive processor 242 or 282… Examples of means for determining a respective quality based on the respective one of the plurality of timing measurement or ranging frames for each one of determined RTTs…).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains, to modify Claim 1, by incorporating Thomas wireless communications and more particularly relates to sidelink(SL) timing-based positioning methods with the range measurement with closed-loop feedback on RTT quality of ZHANG. The motivation to do so would be developing a wireless communication system which will perform timing measurement procedures to measure a round trip time (RTT) between the devices (e.g., between an access point and an access terminal). The advantage would be an apparatus effectively performing the sidelink (SL) timing-based positioning in the wireless communication system in a simple and cost effective manner.
Consider Claim 2, Thomas discloses the wireless communication method of claim 1, wherein the third network node comprises a user equipment (UB) or a location management function (LMF). (Paragraph 0138, the LMF 735 configures the SL target UE 705 with the SL PRS configuration corresponding to a SL TRP originating from at least one mobile anchor reference node 720 such as UE-3).
Consider Claim 3, Thomas discloses the wireless communication method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, by the first network node, control information, wherein the control information comprises information to trigger Sidelink Positioning Reference Signal (SL-PRS) transmission. (Paragraph 0113, a target UE 605 may communicate with an LMF 635, e.g., via a gNB or RSU 630 and with two or more additional UEs 610 and 615. The LMF 635 configures the SL target UE 605 with the SL PRS configuration corresponding to a TRP originating from at least one fixed anchor reference node 620 such as a serving/neighboring base station (gNB)).
Consider Claim 4, Thomas discloses the wireless communication method of claim 1, wherein the measurement comprises at least one of: a user equipment identifier (UB ID), an indication of a synchronization reference source, Sidelink Positioning Reference Signal (SL-PRS) resource information, a Rx-Tx time difference measurement, an additional path list, a timestamp, a SL-PRS reference signal received power (RSRP) result, a SL-PRS reference signal received path power (RSRPP) result, or a line-of-sight (LOS) or non-line-of-sight (NLOS) indicator. (Paragraph 0129, the target UE 605 performs at least two different RSTD measurements 655 with respect to the reference node (gNB-3/RSU-3) which involve real time differences (“RTD”), observed time differences (“OTD”) (τ.sub.1-τ.sub.3), transmit time offsets based on synchronization of SL PRS transmitters).
Consider Claim 5, Thomas discloses the wireless communication method of claim 4, wherein the Rx-Tx time difference measurement, is obtained as TUE-RX - TUE-TX, wherein TUE-Rx indicates a UE received timing of sidelink subframe #i from a transmission point, defined by a first detected path in time, and TUE-Tx corresponds to a UE transmit timing of sidelink subframe #j that is closest in time to the subframe #i received from the transmission point. (Paragraph 0005, use the SL interface to measure the SL round-trip times (R1′1) for SL positioning reference signals (“PRS”) transmitted and received between the target UE and one or more additional UEs where: one or more SL UE Rx-Tx differences for determining the SL RTTs are obtained by: measuring the received timing of the SL subframes containing PRS; measuring the difference between the transmit and receive timing of the SL subframes containing PRS; and computing the one or more SL UE Rx-Tx timing differences).
Consider Claim 6, Thomas discloses the wireless communication method of claim 4, wherein the Rx-Tx time difference measurement is reported with multiple timestamps. (Paragraph 0153, TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 10 SL-RTT Reporting Parameters to LMF/Target UE SL UE- SL UE- Configuration Parameter assisted based SL-TRP ID/SL-PRS ID of each measurement from SL TRP SL-PRS measurement Yes Yes SL Rx − Tx Difference measurement Yes Yes Timing stamp of measurement Yes Yes Measurement Quality, Measurement resolution Yes Yes Embodiment 5).
Consider Claim 7, Thomas discloses the wireless communication method of claim 4, wherein the timestamp is indicated via at least one of: direct frame number (DFN), slot number within the DFN, system frame number (SFN), slot number within the SFN, physical cell information (ID), global cell ID, or absolute radio frequency channel number (ARFCN). (Paragraph 0125, the LMF 635 for use at the target UE 605. TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 SL-TDOA Configuration parameters from LMF to UE SL UE- SL UE- Configuration Parameter assisted based Physical cell IDs (PCIs)).
As for claim 8, claim 8 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale (Thomas “a processor” (paragraph 0005, the target UE comprising a processor); ZHANG “a transceiver” (paragraph 0052, a transmit processor 264, a plurality of transceivers 266-1 to 266-N).
As for claim 9, limitation of parent claim 8 have been discussed above. Claim 9 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 2 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 10, limitation of parent claim 8 have been discussed above. Claim 10 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 3 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 11, limitation of parent claim 8 have been discussed above. Claim 11 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 4 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 12, limitation of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Claim 12 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 5 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 13, limitation of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Claim 13 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 6 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 14, limitation of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Claim 14 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 7 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 15, claim 15 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale (Thomas “a node” (paragraph 0062, the term “RAN node” is used for the base station but it is replaceable by any other radio access node).
As for claim 16, claim 16 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale (Thomas “a processor” (paragraph 0005, the target UE comprising a processor); ZHANG “a receiver” (paragraph 0008, The wireless node comprises a receiver configured to receive..).
As for claim 17, limitation of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Claim 17 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 2 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 18, limitation of parent claim 16 have been discussed above. Claim 18 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 4 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 19, limitation of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Claim 19 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 5 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 20, limitation of parent claim 1 have been discussed above. Claim 20 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 7 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments/remarks made in an amendment filed June 30, 2026, with respect to independent claims 1, 8, 15 and 16 have been fully considered.
With regards to Applicant’s arguments (page 8) that cited reference Thomas fails to disclose “a first network node transmitting a measurement corresponding to a first round trip to a third network node”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cited reference Thomas pacifically disclose determining a measurement that corresponds to more than one network node (paragraph 0152, the LMF 835 configures UE-1 810, UE-2 815 and target UE with the SL-PRS configuration. UE-1 and UE-2 may be RSUs/SL-UEs or VRUs. The one or more additional nodes UE-1 810, UE-2 815 and the target UE 805 report their respective UE Rx-Tx difference measurements to the LMF per beam/SL TRP, which is mainly applicable for UE-assisted positioning. The LMF 835 may compute the distance based on [00002]c(SL-RTT/2), where c is the speed of light and SL-R11 is based on the reported round-trip time).
With regards to Applicant’s arguments (page 8) that cited reference Thomas nowhere does he ever disclose “that the transmitted measurement includes a timing quality indicative of a quality of the measurement determined by the first network node, much less a measurement corresponding to a first round trip that includes such timing quality”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Cited reference Thomas does in fact disclose transmitting measurements (Paragraph 0078, UL-TDoA: The UL TDOA positioning method makes use of the UL TDOA (and optionally UL SRS-RSRP) at multiple RPs of uplink signals transmitted from the UE 205. The RPs measure the UL TDOA (and optionally UL SRS-RSRP) of the received signals using assistance data received from the positioning server, and the resulting measurements are used along with other configuration information to estimate the location of the UE 205 (see Table 3)). In addition, a new cited reference of ZHANG has been introduced in this office action to address the latter limitation “a timing quality of a quality of the measurement,” ZHANG discloses (Paragraph 0166, reads as it is noted that means for receiving, from a wireless node, at least one timing measurement or ranging frame may include at least one of the receive processor 242 or 282… Examples of means for determining a respective quality based on the respective one of the plurality of timing measurement or ranging frames for each one of determined RTTs…). The combination of cited reference Thomas with cited reference does disclose all of the element of claim 1.
In as such Examiner respectfully rejects independent claims 1, 8, 15 and 16. In addition, depended claims 2-7, 9-14, and 17-20, which depends therefrom independent claims 1, 8, 15 and 16 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence.
As a result, the claims are written such that they read upon the cited reference.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 MICHELE CAMILLE DOUGLAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30 am - 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, Jeanette J Parker can be reached at 571-270-3647. 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.
/MICHELE C DOUGLAS/Examiner, Art Unit 2646
/JEANETTE J PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights