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 .
Clarity of the Record – Claim Interpretation
The most recent amendment to the claims removes all language triggering 112(f) means plus function interpretations of the claim language. Therefore, interpretation of the noted claims as invoking 112(f) is withdrawn, and any related 112(b) and 112(a) rejections are further withdrawn.
Clarity of the Record – 112(b) rejection
In the most recent amendments to the claims, the terms ‘assume’ and ’assuming’ have been removed from the claim language, accordingly the associated rejection under USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
Clarity of the Record – Contingent Limitations
The claims have been evaluated for consideration of contingent limitations per MPEP 2111.04 and 2143.03, specifically the differences in considerations for method and system claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner has reviewed the applicant’s remarks but respectfully disagrees that the claims as currently amended are in condition for allowance.
Applicant’s argument: See page 7 of the filed remarks regarding 112(b) rejections. The applicant has noted that the rejection of ‘sufficiently away’ has been overcome by amending the claims to recite “wherein there is no risk of self-interference”.
Examiner’s response: The Examiner appreciates and understands the Applicants intention to define the scope of the term ‘sufficiently away’ by incorporating the language “wherein there is no risk of self-interference”. However, by incorporating the word ‘risk’ in the definition, there is now an additional level of ambiguity as to what confidence level would sufficiently meet the scope of the considered ‘risk’. Therefore, the scope of the claims remains indefinite due to the relative limitation ‘risk’. As a note for suggested amendments, removing ‘risk’ would adequately define ‘sufficiently away’ as ‘wherein there is no self-interference’. As long as the scope of the specification supports that limitation, such an amendment would properly clarify the scope of ‘sufficiently away’.
Applicant’s argument: Regarding the allowability of claim 6.
Examiner’s response: Claim 6 as amended has been reviewed, however the Examiner would like to make a special note to the fact that the ‘determining that an uplink transmission…” limitation is entirely contingent, and therefore the method can be adequately performed without performing any element of that limitation. The limitation will be addressed with prior art in order to facilitate compact prosecution, but consideration should be given that claim 6 as written would carry a different patentable scope to the other independent claims specifically as it relates to determinations of allowability for the claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-6 and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The scope of the claims has been changed by the most recent amendment and the linking of the ‘sufficiently away’ limitation to the self-interference consideration.
The grounds for rejection have been amended to address the changes in scope to the claimed limitations, rendering the arguments towards the Kazmi reference as considered towards the newly entered scope moot.
The combination of Vivio as Khor has only been argued in light of the amended scope, an argument which is now moot.
Due to the nature of the amendments and changes in scope the Khor reference is redundant in light of the newly applied Zhang reference. For considerations of clarity the Khor reference is no longer being applied, but the merits as previously applied are maintained.
The scope of claim 2 has been amended, and will be addressed accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “risk” in claims 1, 5 and 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “risk” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The presence of the word ‘risk’ creates an additional level of ambiguity as to what confidence level would sufficiently meet the scope of the considered ‘risk’. Therefore, the scope of the claims remains indefinite due to the relative limitation ‘risk’.
Claim 2 recites a ‘length in a frequency direction’, while ultimately supported for concerns of new matter in at least the example of Figure 10, it is unclear how ‘length’ is being associated to frequency, as the applicant’s own disclosure equates length to a time duration. Length in context of frequency would imply adjusting of a wave period not the consideration of reference signal processing period. Ultimately the scope and intention of this wording is unclear and creates an indefinite scope for the claimed limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vivo (NPL “Remaining issues on latency enhancement for NR positioning”, see IDS) in view of Zhang (US Pub 20210376896).
Re claim 1, Vivo discloses a terminal (Section 3 -agreement; 3.1, 3.2.1 - UE) comprising:
receive, in downlink (Section 3 -agreement; 3.1, 3.2.1 – DL BWP), a reference signal for positioning (Section 3 -agreement; 3.1, 3.2.1 - PRS) without using a measurement gap (Section 3 -agreement; 3.1, 3.2.1 -MG less measurement) during a reference signal processing period (Section 3 -agreement; 3.1, 3.2.1 – RPS processing window);
determine that the reference signal is to be transmitted by using a duplex method during the reference signal processing period (Section 3 -agreement; 3.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.3 – the UE is disclosed as functioning in TDD, disclosing communication in a duplex method); however Vivo fails to explicitly disclose (1) wherein the embodiment comprising a receiver to receive and a processor configured to determine; and (2) determine that an uplink transmission is allowed during the reference signal processing period in a case where a frequency that is being measured in downlink is located sufficiently away from a frequency of the uplink transmission where there is no risk of self interference.
Regarding items (1) and (2) above, these designs are however disclosed by Zhang. Zhang discloses (1) wherein the embodiment comprising a receiver to receive (Fig 2; Par 16, 50, 57-58, 63) and a processor configured to determine (Fig 2; Par 16, 50, 57-58, 63); and (2) determine that an uplink transmission (Par 100-101 and 110-113) is allowed during the reference signal processing period (Par 100-101 and 110-113) in a case where a frequency (Par 100-101 and 110-113) that is being measured in downlink is located sufficiently away (Par 100-101 and 110-113) from a frequency of the uplink transmission where there is no risk of self interference (Par 100-101 and 110-113).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Vivo in order to incorporate the self-interference considerations of Zhang based on the rationale of the use of known techniques to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance it would obvious to consider potentially known interference issues and dynamically consider the negative effects of the interference to achieve the highest quality and efficiency for the communication the design can thereby improving user experience in the communication environment, further the implementation of specific elements would be obvious in light of the desire to physically implement a designed communication method.
Re claim 5, Vivo discloses a base station comprising:
transmit (Section 3 -agreement; 3.1, 3.2.1 – DL BWP) a reference signal for positioning (Section 3 -agreement; 3.1, 3.2.1 - PRS) without using a measurement gap (Section 3 -agreement; 3.1, 3.2.1 -MG less measurement) during a reference signal processing period (Section 3 -agreement; 3.1, 3.2.1 – RPS processing window); and
determine that the reference signal is to be transmitted by using a duplex method during the reference signal processing period (Section 3 -agreement; 3.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.3 – the UE is disclosed as functioning in TDD, disclosing communication in a duplex method); however Vivo fails to explicitly disclose (1) wherein the embodiment comprising a transmitter to transmit and a processor configured to determine; and (2) determine that an uplink transmission is allowed during the reference signal processing period in a case where a frequency that is being measured in downlink is located sufficiently away from a frequency of the uplink transmission where there is no risk of self interference.
Regarding items (1) and (2) above, these designs are however disclosed by Zhang. Zhang discloses (1) wherein the embodiment comprising a transmitter to transmit (Fig 2; Par 17, 46-47, 56, 62, 64) and a processor configured to determine (Fig 2; Par 17, 46-47, 56, 62, 64); and (2) determine that an uplink transmission (Par 100-101 and 110-113) is allowed during the reference signal processing period (Par 100-101 and 110-113) in a case where a frequency (Par 100-101 and 110-113) that is being measured in downlink is located sufficiently away (Par 100-101 and 110-113) from a frequency of the uplink transmission where there is no risk of self interference (Par 100-101 and 110-113).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Vivo in order to incorporate the self-interference considerations of Zhang based on the rationale of the use of known techniques to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance it would obvious to consider potentially known interference issues and dynamically consider the negative effects of the interference to achieve the highest quality and efficiency for the communication the design can thereby improving user experience in the communication environment, further the implementation of specific elements would be obvious in light of the desire to physically implement a designed communication method.
Re claim 6, Vivo discloses a communication method performed by a terminal (Section 3 -agreement; 3.1, 3.2.1 - UE), the communication method comprising:
receiving, in downlink (Section 3 -agreement; 3.1, 3.2.1 – DL BWP), a reference signal for positioning (Section 3 -agreement; 3.1, 3.2.1 - PRS) without using a measurement gap (Section 3 -agreement; 3.1, 3.2.1 -MG less measurement) during a reference signal processing period (Section 3 -agreement; 3.1, 3.2.1 – RPS processing window);
determining that the reference signal is to be transmitted by using a duplex method during the reference signal processing period (Section 3 -agreement; 3.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.3 – the UE is disclosed as functioning in TDD, disclosing communication in a duplex method); however Vivo fails to explicitly disclose wherein the design comprises to (1) determine that an uplink transmission is allowed during the reference signal processing period in a case where a frequency that is being measured in downlink is located sufficiently away from a frequency of the uplink transmission where there is no risk of self interference.
Regarding item (1) above, these designs are however disclosed by Zhang. Zhang discloses wherein the design comprises to (1) determine that an uplink transmission (Par 100-101 and 110-113) is allowed during the reference signal processing period (Par 100-101 and 110-113) in a case where a frequency (Par 100-101 and 110-113) that is being measured in downlink is located sufficiently away (Par 100-101 and 110-113) from a frequency of the uplink transmission where there is no risk of self interference (Par 100-101 and 110-113).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Vivo in order to incorporate the self-interference considerations of Zhang based on the rationale of the use of known techniques to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance it would obvious to consider potentially known interference issues and dynamically consider the negative effects of the interference to achieve the highest quality and efficiency for the communication the design can thereby improving user experience in the communication environment.
Re claim 4, the combined disclosure of Vivo and Zhang as a whole discloses the terminal as claimed in claim 1, Vivo further discloses wherein the processor determines that a priority order of signals in the reference signal processing period is specified (3.2.1-parameters of PRS window, period/periodicity of processing window).
Re claim 2, the combined disclosure of Vivo and Zhang as a whole discloses the terminal as claimed in claim 1, Vivo further discloses wherein the processor determines that a length in a frequency direction in which the reference signal processing period can be configured is limited (3.2.1-parameters of PRS window, periodicity, Frequency related to PRS processing window and parameters considerations).
Re claim 8, the combined disclosure of Vivo and Zhang as a whole discloses the terminal as claimed in claim 2, Vivo further discloses wherein the processor determines that a priority order of signals in the reference signal processing period is specified (Section 3 – agreement, 3.2, 3.2.2 – PRS priority).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is (571)270-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm.
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.
/MICHAEL R NEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights