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 .
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)(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.
Claim(s) 21-22, 27-28 and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kurras et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2020/212990, hereinafter, ‘Kurras’.
Consider Claim 21, Kurras teaches a method (e.g., see an outline of the method in at least figure 7), comprising: measuring, by a terminal device (e.g., see terminal device in the context of figures 1, 3 and 6), a positioning reference signal received from at least one first network device, to obtain at least one phase difference; and sending, by the terminal device, first information to a second network device (e.g., see context of figures 1, 3 and 6 –“FIG. 3 shows a schematic block diagram of cellular network 300 according to embodiments of the invention. The cellular network 300 comprises a communication apparatus 310 and a localization module 320. The communication apparatus 310 may be one of the communication apparatus according to FIG. 1 or FIG. 2.” ), wherein the first information comprises the at least one phase difference, or the first information is determined based on the at least one phase difference (e.g., see at least 0013 – “the apparatus is configured to receive a reference signal; wherein the apparatus is configured to estimate a phase estimate based on the received reference signal; and wherein the apparatus is configured to provide a localization module with the phase estimate”. ). Note : see also the context of paragraphs 0024, 0032, 0052-0053 and 0060
Consider Claims 22, 28 and 34, Kurras teaches wherein the at least one first network device comprises a reference network device and at least one measurement network device; and the at least one phase difference comprises at least one of the following: a phase difference between a phase obtained by the terminal device by measuring a positioning reference signal sent by the reference network device and a phase obtained by the terminal device by measuring a positioning reference signal sent by the at least one measurement network device; or a phase difference between a channel first path phase obtained by the terminal device by measuring a positioning reference signal sent by the reference network device and a channel first path phase obtained by the terminal device by measuring a positioning reference signal sent by the at least one measurement network device; or a phase difference, at a same frequency, between a frequency domain channel coefficient obtained by the terminal device by measuring a positioning reference signal sent by the reference network device and a frequency domain channel coefficient obtained by the terminal device by measuring a positioning reference signal sent by the at least one measurement network device (e.g., see phase differences between pairs of the plurality of transmitters – see at least 0037 and figure 6 – as best understood by the Examiner, the Network device(s) are the equivalent of network TRP. The Examiner respectfully suggest further defining generic claim language to overcome interpretations that are broader than intended).
Claim 27 and 33 are rejected based on the same rationale as Claim 21. Hardware architecture is illustrated in the noted figures.
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.
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) 23-24, 26, 29-30, 32, 35-36 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurras et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2020/212990, hereinafter, ‘Kurras’ in view of Small et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2022/0400453, hereinafter, ‘Small’.
Consider Claims 23-24, 29-30 and 35-36 Kurras teaches the claimed invention except wherein measuring, by the terminal device, a positioning reference signal to obtain the at least one phase difference comprises measuring, by the terminal device, positioning reference signals sent by the at least one first network device at a same moment (i.e., measurement window – Claim 24) to obtain the at least one phase difference(i.e., as best understood by the Examiner Kurras teaches phase differences between pairs of the plurality of transmitters – see at least 0037 and figure 6).
In analogous art, Small teaches in at least 0044 “each of the reference signal 4 and the slave positioning signal 20 has a carrier component, a pseudo-random code component and a data component. The receiver 10 simultaneously receives and samples the reference signal 4 and slave positioning signal 20 and measures an integrated carrier phase (ICP) difference between the two signals.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try based on, for example, a finite number of alternatives (i.e., same instances or random/different instances) to try wherein measuring, by the terminal device, a positioning reference signal to obtain the at least one phase difference comprises measuring, by the terminal device, positioning reference signals sent by the at least one first network device at a same moment to obtain the at least one phase difference for the purpose of improving positioning.
Consider Claim 26, 32 and 38, Kurras teaches the claimed invention except wherein the at least one first network device comprises one first network device, and the at least one phase difference comprises at least one of the following: a phase difference between phases obtained by the terminal device by measuring positioning reference signals sent by the first network device at different moments; or a phase difference between channel first path phases obtained by the terminal device by measuring positioning reference signals sent by the first network device at different moments; or a phase difference, at a same frequency, between frequency domain channel coefficients obtained by the terminal device by measuring positioning reference signals sent by the first network device at different moments (i.e., as best understood by the Examiner Kurras teaches phase differences between pairs of the plurality of transmitters – see at least 0037 and figure 6).
In analogous art, Small teaches in at least 0044 “each of the reference signal 4 and the slave positioning signal 20 has a carrier component, a pseudo-random code component and a data component. The receiver 10 simultaneously receives and samples the reference signal 4 and slave positioning signal 20 and measures an integrated carrier phase (ICP) difference between the two signals.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try based on, for example, a finite number of alternatives (i.e., same instances or random/different instances) to try wherein the at least one first network device comprises one first network device, and the at least one phase difference comprises at least one of the following: a phase difference between phases obtained by the terminal device by measuring positioning reference signals sent by the first network device at different moments; or a phase difference between channel first path phases obtained by the terminal device by measuring positioning reference signals sent by the first network device at different moments; or a phase difference, at a same frequency, between frequency domain channel coefficients obtained by the terminal device by measuring positioning reference signals sent by the first network device at different moments for the purpose of improving positioning.
Claim(s) 25, 31 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurras et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2020/212990, hereinafter, ‘Kurras’ in view of Kumar et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2023/0068543, hereinafter, ‘Kumar’.
Consider Claim 25, 31 and 37, Kurras teaches the claimed invention except wherein the at least one phase difference is associated with a same timestamp.
In analogous art, Kumar teaches using NR-TimeStamp” information element (IE) that defines the timestamp associated with a UE positioning reference signal (PRS) measurement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to try wherein the at least one phase difference is associated with a same timestamp for the purpose of enhancing measurement reporting.
Claim(s) 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurras et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2020/212990, hereinafter, ‘Kurras’ in view of CN112543160A, hereinafter, ‘CN160’ (original and translated reference furnished by the Applicant).
Consider Claim 39, Kurras teaches the claimed invention except wherein the at least one processor is configured to: perform positioning on the terminal device based on the first information and at least one phase deviation, wherein the at least one phase deviation comprises a phase deviation between different first network devices in the at least one first network device that is obtained by measuring the positioning reference signal sent by the at least one first network device.
In analogous art, CN160 teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to: perform positioning on the terminal device (i.e., target UE ) based on the first information and at least one phase deviation (i.e., see differential carrier phase), wherein the at least one phase deviation comprises a phase deviation between different first network devices in the at least one first network device that is obtained by measuring the positioning reference signal sent by the at least one first network device (e.g., see dual -differential carrier phase – see context of 0036-0046 and 0126-0170).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the at least one processor is configured to: perform positioning on the terminal device based on the first information and at least one phase deviation, wherein the at least one phase deviation comprises a phase deviation between different first network devices in the at least one first network device that is obtained by measuring the positioning reference signal sent by the at least one first network device for the purpose of improving signal measurements.
Consider Claim 40, Kurras teaches the claimed invention except wherein the at least one processor is configured to: perform positioning on the terminal device based on the first information and at least one cumulative phase deviation, wherein the at least one cumulative phase deviation comprises a cumulative amount, in terms of time, of a phase deviation between different first network devices in the at least one first network device that is obtained by measuring the positioning reference signal sent by the at least one first network device.
In analogous art, CN160 teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to: perform positioning on the terminal device based on the first information and at least one cumulative phase deviation, wherein the at least one cumulative phase deviation comprises a cumulative amount, in terms of time, of a phase deviation between different first network devices in the at least one first network device that is obtained by measuring the positioning reference signal sent by the at least one first network device (i.e., this is met based on the carrier phase measurents of both the target UE and reference UE – see context of 0036-0046 and 0126-0170 ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the at least one processor is configured to: perform positioning on the terminal device based on the first information and at least one cumulative phase deviation, wherein the at least one cumulative phase deviation comprises a cumulative amount, in terms of time, of a phase deviation between different first network devices in the at least one first network device that is obtained by measuring the positioning reference signal sent by the at least one first network device for the purpose of improving signal measurements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please See PTO 892. In an effort and bona fide attempt to advance prosecution, Applicant is reminded to (1) Examine the references in their entirety. The cited sections are indicated to merely assist the Applicant in understanding the Examiner's position and should not be used as substitute for reading the entire reference for other relevant details. (2) Carefully review the references cited on the PTO 892 when considering a response to avoid previously presented references on the 892 being applied in subsequent office actions.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201,73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TERRELL SHEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8621. The examiner can normally be reached 8A-5P.
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, Matthew D Anderson can be reached at 571 272 4177. 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.
/CHARLES T SHEDRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights