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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 9/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the proposed amendments, applicant argues that Kim fails to teach "receive one or more positioning reference signals from the selected network node in response to transmitting the second message".
Examiner agrees with applicant that the PRSs specifically mentioned in Kim refer to the reference signals transmitted by a base station/eNB for position determination of a UE. However, it is the examiner’s belief that the positioning responses transmitted by the anchor UEs to the target UE (see step 1430, figure 14) read on the claimed positioning reference signal, as they are associated with reference information (location of the anchor UE, at least one of a transmit time or transmit power for performing ranging/DoA measurements) that in conjunction with a measurement made on said positioning reference signals allows for the location of the target UE to be determined (see Kim, paragraphs 217 and 253-275). Kim further makes clear that the PRSs transmitted by the base station/eNB are not required, and that the UE can determine its position from the positioning responses sent by the selected anchor UEs.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 32-35, 37-42 and 44-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 2017/0212206 (Kim et al.).
As to claims 32, 39 and 46, Kim teaches an apparatus (Target UE, fig 14) comprising at least one processor, and at least one memory including computer program code, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor (see paragraphs 301-302), to cause the target UE to:
receive, from one or more network nodes, one or more first messages indicative of being able to provide a positioning service (see step 1410, fig 14 and paragraphs see paragraphs 222-234, “potential anchor bit” in discovery signal indicates being able to provide positioning service);
select, based at least partly on the one or more first messages, a network node from the one or more network nodes (see step 1420, fig 14 and paragraphs see paragraphs 235-248, anchor selection made based on the received discovery signal); and
transmit, to the selected network node, a second message indicating to activate the positioning service (see step 1430 and paragraphs 249-251).
wherein the apparatus is further caused to: receive one or more positioning reference signals from the selected network node in response to transmitting the second message (see paragraphs 217 and 275).
As to claims 34, 41 and 48, Kim further teaches wherein the one or more network nodes comprise one or more candidate anchors and one or more serving anchors (see paragraph 226, 244 and 245, discovery signal transmitted periodically, and both the target UE and the potential anchors are mobile UEs, meaning the discovery signals currently received by the target UE may come from UEs that were previously selected to be a serving anchor node, or previously not selected to be an anchor node, depending on the current mobility situation).
As to claims 35, 42 and 49, Kim further teaches wherein the selected network node is selected based on at least one of: a first set of measurement information associated with a radio channel between the apparatus and the one or more candidate anchors, a second set of measurement information associated with a radio channel between the apparatus and the one or more serving anchors, and/or a third set of measurement information associated with a radio channel between the one or more network nodes (see paragraph 244, measured power of discovery signal [~first and second set of measurement information] used to determine anchor selection).
As to claims 37 and 44, Kim further teaches wherein the apparatus is further caused to: receive one or more signals from the one or more serving anchors; and measure the one or more signals received from the one or more serving anchors to obtain the second set of measurement information (see paragraph 244, measured power of discovery signal [~first and second set of measurement information] used to determine anchor selection).
As to claims 38 and 45, Kim further teaches wherein the apparatus is further caused to: transmit a positioning request message comprising at least the second set of measurement information (note that claims 7 and 14 depend on claim 4 and 11, which only require “at least one of” the first, second and third set of measurement information. Kim already teaches said first set of measurement information for reasons noted in the rejection of claims 4 and 11).
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.
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 36, 43 and 50-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of US 2023/0319777 (Taira).
As to claims 36, 43 and 50, what is lacking from Kim is wherein the apparatus is further caused to: determine an area based on at least two of: the first set of measurement information, the second set of measurement information, and/or the third set of measurement information, wherein the selected network node is selected based at least partly on the determined area.
In analogous art, Taira teaches a similar anchor determination method in which prior location estimates (this in view of Kim would include prior power measurements of UEs previously selected and not selected to be serving anchor nodes) are used to estimate a current zone ID, which is then used to determine which potential anchors to currently choose based on the zone IDs associated with said potential anchors (see Taira, paragraphs 26-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Kim, so as to ensure the most optimal anchor node is selected.
As to claim 51, Kim further teaches wherein the apparatus is further caused to: receive one or more signals from the one or more serving anchors; and measure the one or more signals received from the one or more serving anchors to obtain the second set of measurement information (see paragraph 244, measured power of discovery signal [~first and second set of measurement information] used to determine anchor selection).
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 MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 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, Charles Appiah can be reached on 571-272-7904. 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.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights