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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the original application filed on 7/5/2024.
Claims 29-48 are rejected.
Claims 1-28 are canceled.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 29-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,047,320.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 29 of the instant application merely broaden the scope of claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,047,320 by reciting an apparatus instead of a UE, and generating but not transmitting the SRS.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA), also note Exparte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); the omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Claims 30-36 depend on claim 29 and are rejected for the same reason.
Claims 37-43 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,047,320.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 37 of the instant application merely broaden the scope of claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,047,320 by reciting a processor but not the UE, and generating but not transmitting the SRS. Claim 37 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions that a processor executes, however Claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,047,320 recites processors performing operations. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the processors perform operations by executing instructions stored in a memory (non-transitory computer readable medium).
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA), also note Exparte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); the omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Claims 38-43 depend on claim 37 and are rejected for the same reason.
Claims 44-48 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,047,320.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 44 of the instant application merely broaden the scope of claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,047,320 by reciting a method rather than a UE, and not reciting processors.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA), also note Exparte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); the omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Claims 45-48 depend on claim 44 and are rejected for the same reason.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29-48 would be allowable provided that the Double Patenting rejections above are overcome.
Prior art was found for the claims as follows:
Shreevastav (US 2022/0209927)
Wang (US 2009/0232118)
Cirik (US 2020/0137821)
Jang (US 2012/0087341)
Kathava (US 2016/0128129)
For the independent claims, Shreevastav teaches the serving base station configuring the UE to send positioning SRS, the UE transmitting positioning SRS, and configuring other positioning nodes to receive the SRS (Shreevastav, Fig 2, paragraphs 12, 54-56). Wang teaches DRX active time and DRX inactive time (Wang, paragraphs 3-4). The rest of the discussion in in respect to the limitations that periodic and semi-persistent positioning SRS are not transmitted by the UE during DRX inactive time, and that aperiodic positioning SRS are transmitted in both DRX active and inactive time. Cirik (US 2020/0137821) teaches in paragraph 227 that the wireless device may not transmit periodic CSI and/or SRS in a DRX off period. Jang (US 2012/0087341) teaches in paragraphs 48 and 52 that Semi-Persistent Scheduling (SPS) uplink data transmission is not allowed during the inactive time, however this is not specifically reference signals. Kathava (US 2016/0128129) teaches in paragraph 99 that the base station may be configured to instruct a terminal device to send an aperiodic SRS using PDCCH signaling at the beginning of a DRX inactive period for the terminal device to allow a response to the previously-received uplink signaling to be scheduled later in the DRX inactive period when the SRS signaling has been received from the terminal device. However it would not be reasonable to combine all these references to reject these claims.
The dependent claims further limit the independent claims and are considered allowable on the same basis as the independent claims as well as for the further limitations set forth.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAD N DEFAUW whose telephone number is (571)272-6905. The examiner can normally be reached on the first Thursday or Friday of the bi-week, and the second Monday or Tuesday of the bi-week.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Jiang can be reached on (571) 270-7191. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.N.D/Examiner, Art Unit 2412 /CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights