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 .
This action is in response to the filing of 9/18/2024. Claims 1-15 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first RRM" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. [for examination purpose this is considered as "the first RRU"]. Claims 2-15 are rejected for their dependencies.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,10,14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akl et al. (US 2025/0142515) in view of Jia et al. (US 2026/0189878).
Regarding claim 1:
Akl discloses a system and method for reporting the location of User Equipment (UE) connected to a first Remote Radio Unit (RRU) in an Open Radio Access Network (O-RAN) to a central computer (abstract; figures) comprising:
first RRU software executing on the first RRU receiving UE information from the UE and generating a Location Report including at least the UE information and a first cell-id associated with the first RRU (figures 1-3; fig 2b [radio unit 229, and CU, DU]; para 110, partially reproduced herein with emphasis {a location reporting procedure 600 by sending a LOCATION REPORTING CONTROL message}; figs 6-9; para 6-12 [location information or UE]; para 63,67; para 116 { cell is identified by a PCI, denoted “Cell ID});
a first Central Unit (CU) server coupled to the first RRM receiving the Location Report (fig 2b [CU 226]; fig 3a,b);
the first CU server transmitting the Location Report to a Mobility Management Entity/Access and Mobility Management Entity (MME/AMF) (fig 1; figure 2b [AMF 264 communicating with CU in RAN]; figure 6);
wherein when the UE moves to a physical location associated with a second cell-id, the first CU server receives a Location Update message including the UE identification information and the second cell-id (para 110 {“Location Reporting Request Type” information element (IE) in the LOCATION REPORTING CONTROL message indicates to the NG-RAN node 620 whether (1) to report directly, (2) to report upon change of serving cell …} [location reporting upon change, is equivalent to location update for second/changed cell]); and
the first CU transmitting the Location Update message to the MME/AMF (para 111 {NG-RAN node 620 sends a report immediately and sends a report whenever the UE's location changes}; para 112 {NG-RAN node 620 sends a LOCATION REPORT message to the AMF}; and see throughout the disclosure).
Akl discloses all of the subject matter as described above, except for specifically teaching that Location Report including UE identification information.
However, Jia in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for data communication where location report including UE identification information (para 166 {The location information of the user…may be a UE ID}; para 302,351; figures; and see throughout the disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Jia in Akl in order to provide associated user location and sensing information for large range and reliability [172] (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Regarding claim 2:
Akl discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein the Location Report comprises a Registration message that is generated when the UE initially connects to the O-RAN (para 62 [UE registration]; figs; and throughout the disclosure).
Regarding claim 10:
Akl discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein the software executing on the first RRU transmits the Location Report to a first Distributed Unit (DU) server coupled to the first RRU; and the first DU server transmits the Location Report to the first CU server (fig 2b; para 70 [RUs 229, DU 228, CU 226, AMF 264, are communication in the order shown]; see throughout).
Regarding claim 14:
Akl discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein the Location Report and the Location Update message are generated independent from a Location Reporting Control message (para 111 {sends a report whenever the UE's location changes}[no control message is required]’; para 112; and see throughout).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akl et al. (US 2025/0142515) in view of Jia et al. (US 2026/0189878) as above, further in view of Ali et al. (WO 2024/211389).
Regarding claim 13:
Akl discloses all of the subject matter as described above and wherein the Location Report further includes data relating to MME/AMF data requirements including, level of Quality of Service (QoS) (para 65 [QoS]), except for specifically teaching a network slice.
However, Ali in the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method for data communication where location report including a network slice (para 37; see throughout the disclosure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use teachings of Ali in Akl in order to provide positioning capabilities in network slices (KSR: Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predictable Results).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cheema et al. (2026/0095796) discloses a system and method for timing advance for positioning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIRDEPAL SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-1688. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 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, Hannah S Wang can be reached on (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.
/HIRDEPAL SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights