CTNF 18/781,260 CTNF 74454 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Drawings Drawings submitted on July 23, 2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings. Claims status This office action is a response to an application filed on July 23, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-35 AIA Claim s 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1, 21 and 22 of copending Application No. 17/620512 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because : Claims 1 and 21 of application 17/620512 recite a first UE transmitting a control channel including an ID and control information, transmitting a first positioning reference signal, receiving a corresponding control channel and second positioning reference signal from a second UE, receiving a first time difference, and determining position based on the first and second time differences. Claims 1, 14, and 18 of instant application recite a first device receiving control information for scheduling a first reference signal, receiving the first reference signal, and transmitting a second reference signal based on the control information, where the control information includes information for requesting the second reference signal. The differences between the claims are not patentably distinct. Specifically: PRS versus reference signal terminology.17/620512 recitation of a positioning reference signal is merely a species of the broader reference-signal framework of instant application. Opposite-side recitation of the same two-device exchange.17/620512 recites the signaling from the perspective of the first UE transmitting first, whereas instant application recites receiving scheduling information and responding with a second reference signal. This is a rearrangement of the same reciprocal communication architecture. Positioning and timing limitations.17/620512 additional time-difference and position-determining limitations are the natural and expected result of the reciprocal signal exchange already broadly claimed in this instant application, also expressly recites RTT-based positioning and distance determination in dependent claims, demonstrating that the timing/positioning subject matter is already within the scope. Reservation/request functionalityInstant application recites that the control information includes information for requesting the second reference signal. 17/620512 recites that the first control information includes reservation information related to transmission of the first PRS. These are substantially corresponding scheduling/authorization concepts. Accordingly, claims 1-20 of instant application are not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 21 of application 17/620512. Co-pending 17/620512 claims recite a wireless positioning exchange between a first UE and a second UE involving control information, reference-signal transmission, reciprocal signaling, and position determination based on time differences. Instant application’s claims recite the same overall communication framework, including scheduling control information, transmission and reception of reference signals, and reciprocal transmission of a second reference signal in response to the control information. The claimed differences amount to a mere change in terminology, a rearrangement of claim format, and the recitation of routine positioning details that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the overlapping reciprocal signaling architecture . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-7 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge et al (US 2020/0137715) in view of Oh et al (US 2016/0274229) . Regarding claims 1, 14 and 18, Edge teaches a method for performing wireless communication by a first device. In particular, Edge discloses a UE or target device operating in a wireless communication system and participating in positioning procedures using downlink and uplink reference signals, including RTT-based positioning. See Edge, 0034–0038, 0051–0053, 0063, 0100–0106, 0108– 0112, 0130–0137, 0216–0223, and 0225–0234. Edge therefore teaches receiving control information for scheduling a first reference signal from a second device, as the serving gNB/LMF provides control signaling and assistance data that instructs the UE to obtain downlink measurements and participate in RTT or PRS-based positioning. Edge further teaches receiving the first reference signal from the second device, as the UE receives downlink RTT measurement signals or downlink PRS from one or more gNBs. See Edge 0103–0106, 0131–0135, 0235, 0251, and 0264. Edge also teaches transmitting a second reference signal to the second device based on the reception of the control information, as the UE transmits uplink RTT measurement signals / uplink reference signals in response to the network control signaling. See Edge 0104–0106, 0108–0112, 0132–0137, 0190–0196, 0234, 0250, and 0261–0263. However, Edge does not expressly disclose that the control information for scheduling the first reference signal includes information for requesting the second reference signal. Oh et al. teaches the missing request/response ranging signaling structure. Oh discloses a first wireless device or initiator transmitting a request range packet to a second wireless device or responder, and the responder transmitting a corresponding response range packet back to the initiator. See Oh 0031–0034, 0051–0054, and 0071–0077. Oh further teaches that the request/response exchange may use various packet formats, including RTS/CTS, probe request/response, and request/response action frames, and that the timing information from the request and response is used to estimate distance and RTT. See Oh 0071–0077. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the positioning procedure of Edge to include the request/response ranging signaling structure of Oh because Oh teaches that distance estimation is improved by exchanging a request packet and a response packet, with the responder’s response being generated in direct response to the request. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Edge’s RTT-based positioning framework would benefit from incorporating Oh’s explicit request/response ranging structure so that the first device’s control information not only schedules reception of the first reference signal, but also initiates and requests the reciprocal second reference signal in the same signaling flow. Such a modification would have been a predictable use of Oh’s disclosed ranging protocol to improve the efficiency and completeness of the two-way measurement exchange in Edge’s positioning system. Note, Ind. claim 14 is the device implementing claim 1 and Ind. Claim 18 is the processing device executing position instruction of claim 1. Regarding claims 2, 15 and 20, Edge teaches the first reference signal and the second reference signal are reference signals used for positioning (Edge teaches positioning RTT/PRS). Regarding claims 3, 16 and 19, the control information for scheduling the first reference signal is received through a control channel (Edge para 0103 and 0108 explicitly teaches PDCCH and other control signaling). Regarding claims 4, Edge teaches measuring a first time difference based on the reception of the first reference signal and the transmission of the second reference signal (Edge para 0235, UE Rx-Tx timing). Regarding claim 5, Edge teaches receiving, from the second device, a second time difference measured based on a transmission of the first reference signal by the second device and a reception of the second reference signal by the second device (Edge 0236 & 0252, gNB Rx-Tx timing). Regarding claim 6, Edge teaches performing round trip time (RTT)-based positioning based on the first time difference and the second time difference (Edge 0255, RTT computation). Regarding claims 7, Edge teaches a distance between the first device and the second device is obtained based on the RTT-based positioning (Edge 0239-0241, position/distance determination). Regarding claim 17, Edge as modified by Oh disclose measuring a first time difference based on the reception of the first reference signal and the transmission of the second reference signal (Edge 0234-0236 & 0252-0255, Edge teaches UE received a DL-PRS, the UE transmits an UL-PRS, the UE and base station measure first time difference and second time difference . Oh para 0074-0077 reinforces measuring two timing intervals (Ti & Tr) and using both values to compute propagation delay which is equivalent to RTT based ranging) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge et al (US 2020/0137715) in view of Oh et al (US 2016/0274229) and further in view of Zhang (US 2018/0231648) . Regarding claim 8, Edge as modified by Oh fails to specifically disclose control information for scheduling the first reference signal includes identifier (ID) related to the first device. However, Zhang teaches network can assign a discovery resource or resource pool that is not overlapping with others, and a resource identification number associated with the configured OFDM resources (Zhang para 0023, 0025, 0027, 0030, 0083-0088- PRS configured by the network, PRS config controlled via RRC higher layer including resource ID and configured resource ID). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the positioning procedure of Edge and Oh to include Zhang’s signaling because PRS based positioning in LTE already relies on signal specific configuration and coordination and it would uniquely associate the scheduled reference signal with the first device and reduce ambiguity among multiple devices. Regarding claim 9, , Edge as modified by Oh fails to specifically disclose wherein the control information for scheduling the first reference signal includes information related to a reserved resource for the first reference signal. Although Edge teaches receiving control information for positioning-related reference signal transmission in a wireless network. Zhang teaches that the network configures a UE with a discovery resource or resource pool that is not overlapping with those of other UEs, and further discloses time and frequency domain parameters defining the configured resources (Zhang para 0023–0025, 0027 and 0088). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Edge’s control signaling to include Zhang’s reserved or non-overlapping resource configuration in order to avoid resource collisions and ensure reliable scheduling of the first reference signal. Regarding claim 10, Edge as modified by Oh fails to specifically receiving information related to a resource pool for the first reference signal from the second device. Zhang teaches that the network assigns a resource pool for sidelink transmission and that the configured resource may be associated with a resource identification number and reported/configured via RRC signaling (Zhang para 0023–0025, 0027 and 0088). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Edge’s control signaling and incorporate Zhang’s resource-pool teaching into Edge’s signaling to provide the first device with resource-pool information for the scheduled reference signal, thereby improving coordination and avoiding resource overlap . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge et al (US 2020/0137715) in view of Oh et al (US 2016/0274229) and further in view of Fischer (US 2016/0337798) . Regrading claim 11, Edge as modified by Oh fails to specifically disclose The method of claim 1, wherein the second reference signal is transmitted based on a reference signal received power (RSRP) value related to the control information being greater than a threshold. However, Fischer provides an OTDOA PRS assistance data utilizing the idea of measurement reporting including RSRP and RSRQ, selection of a reference cell based on the strongest RSRP or RSSI and that assistance or selection decisions are made based on those measurements (Fischer 0075, 0079 and 0099). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Edge and Oh existing positioning procedure to make transmission of the second reference signal contingent on an RSRP or other signal strength-based threshold, as taught by Fischer, because thresholding signal quality is a known technique for improving measurement reliability and positioning performance . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge et al (US 2020/0137715) in view of Oh et al (US 2016/0274229) and further in view of Gulati et al (2018/0063816) Regarding claim 12, Edge as modified by Oh fails to specifically disclose the second reference signal is transmitted based on priority of a service related to the first reference signal being higher than the priority of a service other than the service related to the first reference signal. However, Gulati discloses D2D communications where wireless transmissions may be scheduled from among candidate resources based on ranking, thresholds and constraints tied to a first selected transmission, rather than by arbitrary selection. In other words, Gulati teaches priority like resource selection, thresholding and multi-transmission scheduling (Gulati – 0041-0049, 0058-0062 and 0065). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Edge and Oh existing positioning procedure to condition transmission of the second reference signal on a service-priority determination, such that the second reference signal is transmitted only when the service associated with the first reference signal has higher priority than another service, in order to preserve resources for higher-priority services, improve scheduling efficiency . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge et al (US 2020/0137715) in view of Oh et al (US 2016/0274229) and further in view of Kang et al (US 2019/0113629) . Regarding claim 13, , Edge as modified by Oh fails to specifically the second reference signal is transmitted based on a reliability related to a location of the first device being greater than a threshold. However, Kang teaches calculating a reliability score for position-related sensing data and using such data only when the reliability score exceeds a threshold, including outputting or re-estimating position only when the data is determined to be reliable (Kang paragraphs 0005, 0011, 0016, 0066-0068, 0074-0079). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Edge and Oh to condition transmission of the second reference signal on a reliability metric associated with the first device’s location exceeding a threshold, as suggested by Kang, in order to improve robustness and avoid using unreliable positioning information. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDAN ORGAD whose telephone number is (571)272-7884. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM. 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 director, Deborah Reynolds can be reached at 571-272-0734. 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. /EDAN ORGAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2414 Application/Control Number: 18/781,260 Page 2 Art Unit: 2414 Application/Control Number: 18/781,260 Page 3 Art Unit: 2414 Application/Control Number: 18/781,260 Page 4 Art Unit: 2414 Application/Control Number: 18/781,260 Page 5 Art Unit: 2414 Application/Control Number: 18/781,260 Page 6 Art Unit: 2414 Application/Control Number: 18/781,260 Page 7 Art Unit: 2414 Application/Control Number: 18/781,260 Page 8 Art Unit: 2414 Application/Control Number: 18/781,260 Page 9 Art Unit: 2414 Application/Control Number: 18/781,260 Page 10 Art Unit: 2414 Application/Control Number: 18/781,260 Page 11 Art Unit: 2414 Application/Control Number: 18/781,260 Page 12 Art Unit: 2414
Prosecution Insights