DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/18/2025 and 10/28/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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.
Claims1-4, 12,13, 19, 20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 9, 12, 18, 19, 20 of Application No. 18/788,546.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Instant application
Co-pending Application 18/788,546
Claim 1.
Claim 3.
wherein the communication device includes at least one of a location server, a server UE, or an anchor UE.
Claim 2.
wherein the UE includes at least one of a target-UE, a server UE, or an anchor UE.
Claim 4.
wherein the sidelink positioning integrity information includes real-time integrity information.
Claim 13.
wherein the sidelink positioning integrity information includes real-time integrity information.
Claim 1.
Accordingly, the claims of the instant application are broader in scope and encompassed by the subject matter claimed in 18/788,546. Therefore, the claims of the instant application are not distinct from the claims of 18/788.546, and a rejection on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting is appropriate.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6-12, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shreevastav et al. (US PGPUB 20230221401 A1, hereinafter known as Shreevastav) as cited in IDS, in view of Shen (US PG PUB 20250294512 A1), hereinafter known as Shen).
Consider claims 1, 12, 19, 20.
Shreevastav teaches A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: ([0072] In some embodiments, the non-limiting term “user equipment” (UE) is used and it can refer to any type of wireless device which can communicate with a network node and/or with another UE in a cellular or mobile or wireless communication system.") & ([0084] "FIG. 4a illustrates an example of a wireless network 100 that can be used for wireless communications. Wireless network 100 includes wireless devices, such as UEs 110A-110B").
at least one memory; and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to: ([0234] "FIG. 11 is a block diagram of an example wireless device, UE 110, in accordance with certain embodiments. UE 110 includes a transceiver 510, processor 520, and memory 530.").
transmit, to a communication device, ([0205] "Positioning node 200/202 can be any of UE 100, access node 120 or location server 130.")
a configuration request message to request ([0151] “The integrity system knowledge database and the algorithms can be used to provide a response or a configuration to a request between any of UE, gNB, or positioning node (e.g. request from UE/response to UE, from positioning node/to positioning node, from gNB/to gNB, from positioning node/to gNB, request from UE/configuration to gNB, request from positioning node/configuration to gNB, etc.).")
the configuration request message including at least integrity service parameters; ([0041] "The integrity KPI associated with the QoS can include an integrity risk (IR) parameter, the IR parameter indicating a maximum probability of providing a positioning service that is out of a tolerance range.").
receive, from the communication device, a response message that includes the requested sidelink positioning integrity information; ([0152] "In one example, the integrity system receives a request for an estimated integrity level for a combination {UE capability, QoS target(s)} and provides a response {estimated integrity level, positioning method(s) which can be used}.").
and
determine sidelink positioning integrity of a computed location estimate based at least in part on the received sidelink positioning integrity information. ([0042] " receive, from the wireless device, at least one of an integrity level associated with the estimated position and/or a second integrity KPI. The network node can determine an integrity of the estimated position in accordance with the received second integrity KPI.").
Shreevastav fails to explicitly teach and clarify sidelink positioning integrity information,
Shen does teach sidelink positioning integrity information, (([0099] "wherein the ranging sidelink positioning capability response message includes ranging sidelink positioning capability information of at least one terminal device; and calculation information for ranging sidelink positioning for the first terminal device and the at least one second terminal device is determined according to the ranging sidelink positioning capability response message.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have combined Shreevastav‘s teaching of positioning integrity with Shen’s teaching and specified utilization of sidelink capabilities. The combined teachings would result in a predictable outcome of providing a UE for wireless communication, to transmit sidelink integrity and receive sidelink positioning integrity, while using the information to estimate a computed location.
Consider claim 2.
Shreevastav in view of Shen discloses the apparatus of claim 1, Shreevastav further teaches wherein the UE includes at least one of a target-UE, a server UE, or an anchor UE. ([0072] " Examples of UE are target device,").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have combined Shreevastav‘s and Shen’s teachings to achieve the predictable outcome of at least one UE including a target-UE.
Consider claim 3.
Shreevastav in view of Shen discloses the apparatus of claim 1, Shreevastav further teaches wherein the communication device includes at least one of a location server, a server UE, or an anchor UE. ([0205]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have combined Shreevastav‘s and Shen’s teachings to achieve the predictable outcome of the communication device including at least one location server.
Consider claims 6, 15.
Shreevastav in view of Shen discloses the apparatus of claim 1, Shreevastav further teaches wherein the configuration request message includes the request for at least one of measurement error bound information and associated parameters of the measurement error bound information, or assistance error bound information and associated parameters of the assistance error bound information. ([0154] “In another example, the integrity system receives a request for positioning at a certain integrity level and in response provides or indicates the necessary {assistance data or positioning configurations} for one or more positioning methods or measurements, necessary to achieve the requested integrity level.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have combined Shreevastav‘s and Shen’s teachings to achieve the predictable outcome of a configuration request message including the request for error bound measurements and associated parameters.
Consider claims 7, 16.
Shreevastav in view of Shen discloses the apparatus of claim 1, Shreevastav further teaches wherein a determination of the sidelink positioning integrity supports a UE-based sidelink positioning integrity result and a location management function (LMF)-based sidelink positioning integrity result. ([0156] "A common Information Element (IE) can be used to fetch the UE capability in terms of informing the support of integrity. The integrity level that UE supports and the integrity KPIs that the UE support. The location server may request with below information from UE and implicitly also suggesting that LMF supports the requested capabilities.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have combined Shreevastav‘s and Shen’s teachings to achieve the predictable outcome of a determination of the sidelink positioning integrity supports a UE-based sidelink positioning integrity result and a location management function (LMF)-based sidelink positioning integrity result.
Consider claims 8, 17.
Shreevastav in view of Shen discloses the apparatus of claim 1, Shreevastav further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to utilize at least one of LTE positioning protocol (LPP) messages or sidelink positioning protocol (SLPP) request assistance data and provide assistance data messages to exchange the sidelink positioning integrity information. ([0157] It is also possible to provide a separate IE for Integrity related message handling or merge it with existing LPP positioning methods.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have combined Shreevastav‘s and Shen’s teachings to achieve the predictable outcome of a UE to utilize LPP related messages.
Consider claims 9, 18.
Shreevastav in view of Shen discloses the apparatus of claim 1, Shreevastav further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to utilize at least one of sidelink radio access technology (RAT)-dependent positioning methods or sidelink RAT-independent positioning methods to determine the sidelink positioning integrity. ([0139] "Depending upon the UE and gNB capabilities the threshold may further be revised. For example, if UE supports hybrid positioning method then that can basically augment the positioning calculation or help in reducing/compensating the uncertainty. Further UEs capable of RAT dependent and RAT independent may cross verify.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have combined Shreevastav‘s and Shen’s teachings to achieve the predictable outcome of a UE to utilize RAT dependent positioning methods to determine positioning integrity.
Claims 4, 5, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shreevastav in view of Shen as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Blankenship et al. (US PGPUB 20260113635 A1, hereinafter known as Blankenship).
Consider claims 4, 13.
Shreevastav, in view of Shen disclose at least one user equipment, processor, and method of claim 1. Shen also teaches wherein the sidelink positioning integrity ([0099]), but Shreevastav and Shen fails to teach information includes real-time integrity information.
Blankenship however does teach information includes real-time integrity information. ([0011] “In an embodiment, the second IE may be an AIMLPos-RealTimeIntegrity.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have combined Shreevastav‘s teachings with Shen’s sidelink positioning and Blankenship’s teaching of real-time integrity information to achieve a predictable outcome.
Consider claims 5, 14.
Shreevastav and Shen discloses the claimed invention of claim 1, but fails to expressly teach wherein the integrity service parameters include at least one of a residual risk, an upper bound of integrity risk allocation, or a lower bound of the integrity risk allocation.
Blankenship does teach wherein the integrity service parameters include at least one of a residual risk, an upper bound of integrity risk allocation, or a lower bound of the integrity risk allocation. ([0047] "Positioning integrity is therefore a method of bounding these errors and this can be done to a much higher confidence. For example, a Target Integrity Risk (TIR)") & ([0054] "Protection Level (PL): A statistical upper-bound of the Positioning Error (PE)").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have combined Shreevastav and Shen’s teachings with Blankenship’s TIR and error bounds to achieve a predictable outcome of service parameters of residual risk.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang et al. (US PGPUB 20260189914 A1), Balasubramanian et al. (US PGPUB 20240056245 A1), Zhang et al. (US PGPUB 20250056571 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J LUBBERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5520. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am to 5pm ET.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571 270 5371. 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.
/ANDREW J LUBBERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2644
/KATHY W WANG-HURST/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights