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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
This application claims priority to International Application No. PCT/CN2022/09884, filed on June 14, 2022, and also claims priority to International Application No. PCT/CN2023/100278, filed on June 14, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) is submitted on 9/15/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. According, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract contains the phrase “This disclosure provides …”. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”, for example sending a first message to a server. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because he steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such.
CLAIM ANALYSIS
STEP 1: YES. The claims meet the statutory categories.
Claims 1-18 fall within a statutory category of process.
Claim 19 falls within a statutory category of machine.
Claim 20 falls within a statutory category of manufacture.
STEP 2A: PRONG ONE YES. The claims are directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception being directed to an abstract idea.
As a representative example, take Claim 1:
A method of wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE), the method comprising:
sending, to a positioning server and via a second UE, a first message including status indication information indicating that the first UE is a remote UE in a sidelink communication between the first UE and the second UE.
(Additional elements appearing in bold analyzed in Steps 2A,2B below)
In plain language, the claim steps above in the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) comprise sending a message to a server via a second UE.
These steps are merely a mental process (i.e. sending information). Examiner notes mental process includes describe mental observations and evaluations that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and also those performed with a pen/pencil or a general purpose computer.
Claims 19 and 20 contain the same process steps as claim 1, performed using general purpose computer.
STEP 2A Prong Two: NO. Evaluating additional elements recited in the claim individually and in combination, the claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
The additional elements in in claim 1 appear in bold and account for insignificant extra solution activity. The limitations merely define the intended environment (i.e. first UE, second UE, positioning server, etc.) defined generally and are mere generic entities constitute mere data communication recited at a high level of generality and amount to transmitting data generally, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
STEP 2B: NO. Evaluating additional elements recited, the claim as a whole does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The analysis above in parts and re-evaluated again for the claims as a whole, the additional elements are mere generic entities such as “a first UE”, “a second UE”, “a positioning server”, without any given implementation thus amount to data communication recited at a high level of generality and amount to transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
ANALYSIS 2A Dependent Claims 2-18
Dependent claims recite additional elements:
base station in claims 3, 4, 12 and 13.
The dependent claims further recite additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality and thus amount to intended environment descriptors. Thus, the claims are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, analyzing and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
ANALYSIS 2B Dependent Claims 2-18 NO. Evaluating additional elements recited, the claim as a whole does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The analysis above in parts and re-evaluated again for the claims as a whole, the additional elements are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos et al. (US 20230056831 A1 and Manolakos hereinafter), in view of Kumar et al. (US 20250227651 A1 and Kumar hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Manolakos teaches a method of wireless communication at a first user equipment (UE) (Figures 11 and 12; first UE), the method comprising:
sending, to a positioning server and via a second UE (Figures 11 and 12, Paragraphs 0117 and 0135; the target UE [interpreted as the first UE] can initiate a location request by transmitting a request to each of any nearby (assisting) UEs [interpreted as the second UE] over sidelinks established with those UEs. The assisting UEs receive the location requests and forward them to the network (e.g., a serving base station or a location server)), a first message (Figures 11 and 12, Paragraphs 0117 and 0134; location request) including status indication information (Paragraph 0080; identifiers may be used for each of the connection request 315, the connection response 320, and the connection establishment 325. Paragraph 0117; sidelinks may be established at the time of the location request. Since sidelinks may be established at the time of the location request, thus the location request [interpreted as the first message] may include the identifiers).
Manolakos does not explicitly teach status indication information indicating that the first UE is a remote UE in a sidelink communication between the first UE and the second UE. However, Manolakos teaches the target UE is transmitting location request to the server via the assisting UEs (Paragraphs 0117 and 0135), and in response, the network assigns time/frequency resources (e.g., resource allocation 804) to each of the assisting UEs over the Uu interface for the ranging signals (e.g., SL-PRS) to be used for the respective positioning procedures (Paragraphs 0117 and 0136). Thus the location request may contain status indication that the requesting/first UE is a remote UE in sidelink communication in order for the network entity to assign necessary resources for the sidelink positioning procedure and provided to the assisting UE. In addition, Kumar teaches status indication information indicating that the first UE is a remote UE in a sidelink communication between the first UE and the second UE (Figure 8 and Paragraphs 0090 and 0093; the remote UEs may provide positioning capability information to the location server via relay UEs. When the location server 820 determine that a positioning session is needed for the particular remote UE, it can determine the configuration information needed for conducting positioning session between the relay UE and the remote UE, and send the configuration information to the relay UE. Therefore the location server can distinguish between the relay UE and the remote UE based on the positioning capability information provided to the location server). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Manolakos and Kumar because it would assist a positioning session between UEs to coordinate sidelink positioning sessions to ensure efficient use of bandwidth and other wireless resources (Kumar, Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Manolakos and Kumar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Manolakos teaches wherein the second UE is a relay UE in the sidelink communication between the first UE and the second UE (Figures 7 and 12, Paragraphs 0117 and 0135; the assisting UEs [interpreted as the second UE] receive the location requests and forward them to the network (e.g., a serving base station or a location server)).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Manolakos and Kumar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Kumar teaches wherein the status indication information indicates that the first UE is out of a coverage area of a cell operated by a base station that serves the second UE (Figure 5 and Paragraphs 0072 and 0074; a UE (e.g., a relay UE 510 or remote UE 540) determine UEs with which to conduct sidelink positioning session much faster than the discovery procedure in sidelink mode 2 operation. If relay UE 510 is connected to the network, the location server 560 can determine the configuration and resource pool configuration (e.g., PRS configuration including frequency, timing, etc.) based on sidelink positioning capabilities of remote UEs 540 relayed through the relay UE 510). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Manolakos and Kumar because it would assist a positioning session between UEs to coordinate sidelink positioning sessions to ensure this can reduce the positioning latency (Kumar, Paragraphs 0003 and 0074).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Manolakos and Kumar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Manolakos teaches wherein the status indication information indicates a coverage quality of a cell operated by a base station that serves the second UE (Paragraph 0121; the target UE transmits a DMRS on the PSSCH at the same time as, or at least associated with, the MAC-CE containing the location request. A DMRS enables the receiver to estimate the channel conditions of the sidelink in order to better transmit and receive over the sidelink).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Manolakos and Kumar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Manolakos teaches sending, to the positioning server and via the second UE (Figures 11 and 12, Paragraphs 0117 and 0135; the target UE [interpreted as the first UE] can initiate a location request by transmitting a request to each of any nearby (assisting) UEs [interpreted as the second UE] over sidelinks established with those UEs. The assisting UEs receive the location requests and forward them to the network (e.g., a serving base station or a location server)), a request (Figures 11 and 12, Paragraphs 0117 and 0134; location request) for assistance data for a measurement of the location information of the first UE (Paragraph 0065; location server 230, which may be in communication with the 5GC 210 to provide location assistance for UEs 204); receiving, from the positioning server and via the second UE, the assistance data for the measurement of the location information of the first UE (Paragraph 0065; location server 230, which may be in communication with the 5GC 210 to provide location assistance for UEs 204); and performing the measurement of the location information of the first UE based on the assistance data (Paragraph 0065; location server 230, which may be in communication with the 5GC 210 to provide location assistance for UEs 204. Figure 9 and Paragraph 0106; the remote/target UE performs location measurement).
In addition, Kumar teaches receiving, from the positioning server, a second message to request location information of the first UE (Figure 8 and Paragraph 0093; the location server 820 may determine that a positioning session is needed for the particular remote UE, as indicated at block 830. This determination may be made). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Manolakos and Kumar because it would assist a positioning session between UEs to coordinate sidelink positioning sessions to ensure efficient use of bandwidth and other wireless resources (Kumar, Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Manolakos and Kumar teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, as described above. Further, Kumar teaches wherein the assistance data is determined by the positioning server based on the status indication information indicating that the first UE is the remote UE in the sidelink communication (Figure 8, Paragraphs 0090 and 0093; the remote UE may provide positioning capability information to the location server via the relay UE, and the location server determine a configuration information for the position session based on positioning capabilities of both the relay UE 710 and the remote UE(s) 725)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Manolakos and Kumar because it would assist a positioning session between UEs to coordinate sidelink positioning sessions to ensure efficient use of bandwidth and other wireless resources (Kumar, Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Manolakos and Kumar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Kumar teaches sending, to the positioning server and via the second UE, a measurement report of the location information of the first UE (Paragraph 0091; determine the position of the relay UE 710, measurement and/or other information related to the positioning session can be passed between UEs and/or relayed to the location server 720 via the relay UE 710). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Manolakos and Kumar because it would assist a positioning session between UEs to coordinate sidelink positioning sessions to ensure efficient use of bandwidth and other wireless resources (Kumar, Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Manolakos and Kumar teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, as described above. Further, Manolakos teaches wherein both the first message and the second message are based on a same positioning protocol (Paragraphs 0037, 0043 and 0056; LTE; wireless sidelink (or just “sidelink”) is an adaptation of the core cellular (e.g., LTE, NR) standard that allows direct communication between two or more UEs without the communication needing to go through a base station).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Manolakos and Kumar teaches all of the limitations of claim 8, as described above. Further, Manolakos teaches wherein the positioning protocol is an LTE positioning protocol (Paragraphs 0037, 0043 and 0056; LTE; wireless sidelink (or just “sidelink”) is an adaptation of the core cellular (e.g., LTE, NR) standard that allows direct communication between two or more UEs without the communication needing to go through a base station. Paragraph 0117; the network assigns time/frequency resources (e.g., resource allocation 804) to each of the assisting UEs over the Uu interface for the ranging signals (e.g., SL-PRS) to be used for the respective positioning procedures).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Manolakos and Kumar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Manolakos teaches wherein the status indication information includes a Boolean flag indicating whether the first UE is the remote UE in the sidelink transmission between the first UE and the second UE (Paragraph 0122; a flag (e.g., a one-bit field) in the SCI-2 (decodable at the physical layer) indicates that the SCI-2 includes a location request, which alerts the assisting UE that it should treat the associated DMRS as a ranging signal for positioning purposes).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Manolakos and Kumar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Manolakos teaches wherein the status indication information includes an identifier of the second UE (Paragraph 0080; identifiers may be used for each of the connection request 315, the connection response 320, and the connection establishment 325. Paragraph 0117; sidelinks may be established at the time of the location request. Since sidelinks may be established at the time of the location request, thus the location request [interpreted as the first message] may include the identifiers).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Manolakos and Kumar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Manolakos teaches wherein the status indication information indicates a coverage metric for a base station that serves the second UE (Paragraph 0121; the assisting UE should measure the DMRS as a positioning signal (e.g., ToA, signal strength, etc.) and store the measurements).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Manolakos and Kumar teaches all of the limitations of claim 12, as described above. Further, Manolakos teaches wherein the coverage metric is a received signal strength at the first UE of a signal transmitted from the base station (Paragraph 0121; the assisting UE should measure the DMRS as a positioning signal (e.g., ToA, signal strength, etc.) and store the measurements).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Manolakos and Kumar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Manolakos teaches wherein the status indication information indicates a coverage quality of the second UE (the target UE transmits a DMRS on the PSSCH at the same time as, or at least associated with, the MAC-CE containing the location request. A DMRS enables the receiver to estimate the channel conditions of the sidelink in order to better transmit and receive over the sidelink).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Manolakos and Kumar teaches all of the limitations of claim 14, as described above. Further, Manolakos teaches wherein the coverage quality of the second UE includes a sidelink measurement of the sidelink communication between the first UE and the second UE (Paragraph 0121; the target UE transmits a DMRS on the PSSCH at the same time as, or at least associated with, the MAC-CE containing the location request. A DMRS enables the receiver to estimate the channel conditions of the sidelink in order to better transmit and receive over the sidelink).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Manolakos and Kumar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Manolakos teaches wherein the status indication information indicates at least one of a time offset or a roundtrip time between the first UE and the second UE (Figures 9 and 10, Paragraphs 0106 and 0111; length of time between reception of the ranging signal from the assisting UE 902 and the transmission of the responding ranging signal by the target UE 904 is referred to as “T.sub.UE2,Rx-Tx,” or “UE2 Rx-Tx,” where “Rx-Tx” stands for “reception-to-transmission.” The response ranging signal may include a measurement report including the value of T.sub.UE2,Rx-Tx, and has some propagation time between the target UE 904 and the assisting UE 902).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Manolakos and Kumar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Manolakos teaches wherein the status indication information includes a plurality of indications each corresponding to one of a plurality of serving frequency layers used in the sidelink communication between the first UE and the second UE (Paragraph 0058; the sidelinks 162, 166, 168 may be cV2X links. A first generation of cV2X has been standardized in LTE, and the next generation is expected to be defined in NR. cV2X is a cellular technology that also enables device-to-device communications. In the U.S. and Europe, cV2X is expected to operate in the licensed ITS band in sub-6 GHz. Other bands may be allocated in other countries. Thus, as a particular example, the medium of interest utilized by sidelinks 162, 166, 168 may correspond to at least a portion of the licensed ITS frequency band of sub-6 GHz. However, the present disclosure is not limited to this frequency band or cellular technology).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Manolakos and Kumar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Manolakos teaches wherein the status indication information is used for obtaining location information of the first UE (Paragraph 0065; location server 230, which may be in communication with the 5GC 210 to provide location assistance for UEs 204).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites similar features as claim 1, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1. Further, Manolakos teaches a first user equipment (UE) (Figure 11), comprising:
processing circuitry configured to perform function (Paragraph 0090; processing system 410 may include one or more microprocessors, microcontrollers, ASICs, processing cores, digital signal processors, or the like that provide processing functions, as well as other calculation and control functionality).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites similar features as claim 1, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1. Further, Manolakos teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which when executed by a first user equipment (UE) cause the first UE to perform operations (Paragraph 0091; processing system 410 may also be coupled to a memory 414 providing means for storing (including means for retrieving, means for maintaining, etc.) data and software instructions for executing programmed functionality within the UE 400).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Akkarakaran et al. (US 20210014814 A1) discloses facilitating a soft in-coverage/out-of-coverage indication for sidelink communications.
Barbu et al. (US 20240397467 A1) discloses positioning of a low power device using sidelink.
Vogedes et al. (US 20240422725 A1) discloses devices assist in NR SL positioning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jing Gao whose telephone number is (571)270-7226. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am - 6pm M-F.
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 Alison Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jing Gao/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights