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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: block 240 in para. 60. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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 1-2, 6-11 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Duan et al. (US 2024/0104202 as supported by the corresponding figures and passages of GR 2021-0100239).
Regarding claim 1, Duan discloses a first device (para. 107; note: UE or TRP) comprising (figs. 15-16): at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program codes; the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device to (paras. 124-137): in accordance with a determination of a trigger related to a positioning performance of a second device (fig. 14A, step 1410; fig. 14B; paras. 107-108; note: receiving a positioning reference signal), determine a set of measured channel parameters based on a set of reference signals associated with the second device (step 1420 and paras. 110 and 112-113; note: measured parameters of a PRS); compare the set of measured channel parameters with a set of reference channel parameters, wherein the set of reference channel parameters are obtained from a previous measurement which is associated with an anomaly-free signal (step 1430 and paras. 112-113; note: PRS comparison with other reference signals having no anomaly; note: consistency check using comparison signals); and determine whether an anomaly behavior occurs at the second device based on the comparison (step 1440 and paras. 115 and 117; note: threshold different in characteristics between the measured PRS signals and other measured reference signals as comparison signals; note: a transmission of a PRS at a second device being interfered as an anomaly behavior in its broadest reasonable interpretation - specification of the instant application, paras. 29 and 46).
Regarding claim 2, Duan discloses the first device of claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the first device to: receive data about a positioning quality of service of the second device (paras. 96 and 106; note: comparative RSRP as a quality in the broadest reasonable interpretation - specification of the instant application, para. 46), wherein the data comprises at least one of: an estimated position uncertainty value (paras. 91, 96, 106 and 112-113, consistency check for positioning based on a channel energy response),
Regarding claim 6, Duan discloses the first device of claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device to determine whether the anomaly behavior occurs at the second device based on the comparison by: in accordance with a determination that a distribution of the set of measured channel parameters matches with a distribution of the set of reference channel parameters, determining that the anomaly behavior occurs at the second device (figs. 14A-14B; paras. 112-113 and 115; note: anomaly detected based on a difference between a characteristic in a combination of RSRP, AoA, AoD, location or profile of a CER, etc.); or in accordance with a determination that a distribution of the set of measured channel parameters does not match with a distribution of the set of reference channel parameters, determining that the anomaly behavior does not occur at the second device (figs. 14A-14B; paras. 112-113 and 115; note: anomaly not detected based on a difference between a characteristic in a combination of RSRP, AoA, AoD, location or profile of a CER, etc.).
Regarding claim 7, Duan discloses the first device of claim 1, wherein the set of measured channel parameters comprises at least one of:
Regarding claim 8, Duan discloses the first device of claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device to compare the set of measured channel parameters with the set of reference channel parameters by one of:
Regarding claim 9, Duan discloses the first device of claim 1, wherein the first device comprises one of: a transmission point, a terminal device, or a positioning reference unit (fig. 14A-14B; paras. 107 and 114; note: a processor is a positioning reference unit).
Regarding claims 10-11 and 15-18, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 1-2 and 6-9, respectively.
Regarding claim 19, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 10. In addition, Duan discloses a computer readable storage medium (figs. 15-16) comprising program instructions stored thereon, the instructions, when executed by an apparatus, causing the apparatus to perform (paras. 124-137) the method of claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan in view of Kumar et al. (US 2020/00021409).
Regarding claim 3, Kumar fails to disclose the first device of claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the first device to: receive a first channel profile of the second device towards a neighbor cell, wherein the first channel profile comprises at least one of: a second carrier frequency of the neighbor cell, a second bandwidth of the neighbor cell, a maximum frequency shift of the neighbor cell, a serving beam index of the neighbor cell, a link quality of the neighbor cell, a traffic direction indicator of the neighbor cell, a cross-link interference level of the neighbor cell, a total number of cross-link interference aggressors, a co-channel interference indicator of the neighbor cell, or map information of a region where the second device locates.
However, Kumar discloses a UE receiving assistance data to identify a carrier frequency of a PRS of neighbor cell (fig. 8 and para. 86). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive a first channel profile of the second device towards a neighbor cell, wherein the first channel profile comprises at least one of: a second carrier frequency of the neighbor cell
Regarding claim 12, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kaabouch et al. (US 2020/0225358; fig. 9 and paras. 21-23), Duan et al. (US 2024/0389061; fig. 10), and Manolakos et al. (US 2024/0147239; figs. 8A-11 and paras. 89, 92 and 112) each discloses determining a positioning anomaly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM 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, Yemane Mesfin, can be reached at 571-272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. For non-official communications, the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights