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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as
being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicants may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 4 depends on Claim 3, which depends on Claim 1. Clim 4 recites “determine whether a sidelink connection with the one or more second apparatus is able to be established based at least in part on the priority value.”
However, claim 1 and Claim 3 do not recite any such determination. Claim 1 recites only receiving, selecting, and transmitting, and claim 3 recites only that the information pertaining to the subset comprises a priority value. The only claim reciting a determination whether a sidelink connection is able to be established is claim 2. It is therefore unclear whether claim 4 is meant to further define the determination of claim 2 or add a new determination. The rejection of Claim 4 under 35 USC § 103 below is made as best understood as reciting a determination, based on a priority values received with the first set, that forms a basis for the selection recited in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 is 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.
For Oteri et al. (US-20260223050-A1) using the date of PCT/CN2023/076512 having
an international filing date of February 16,2023.
For Keshavamurthy et al. (US-20250344183-A1). using the date of claimed foreign
priority to GB [2301702.3], field on February 7, 2023.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 12-18, and 20 is/are rejected und1er 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Bao et al. (US-11696277-B2) in view of Oteri et al. (US-20260223050-A1).
Claim(s) 5, 10, 11, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Bao et al. (US-11696277-B2) in view of Oteri et al. (US-20260223050-A1) in further view of Keshavamurthy et al. (US-20250344183-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Bao discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication,
comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to: (PARA[0190], Fig.4, “the UE 400 may correspond to any of the UEs described herein (e.g., an example implementation of UE 302, etc.)”; PARA [0195], “The at least one processor 410 may include one or more central processing units (CPUs), microprocessors, microcontrollers, ASICs, processing cores, digital signal processors (DSPs), field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs), or the like that provide processing functions”; PARA [0196], “The at least one processor 410 may also be coupled to a memory 414 providing means for storing… data and software instructions for executing programmed functionality within the UE 400”; PARA [0198], Fig.4, “the UE 400 may include a sidelink manager 470 coupled to the at least one processor 410. The sidelink manager 470 may be a hardware, software, or firmware component that, when executed, causes the UE 400 to perform the operations described herein”) i.e., the target UE that carries out Bao’s sidelink positioning operations is implemented as the processor 410 coupled to memory 414, executing the sidelink manager 470 that causes those very operations to be performed.
receive, from a first apparatus, a first sidelink positioning protocol message comprising information for selecting a first set of one or more second apparatus for sidelink positioning; (PARA[0315], Fig. 19 block 1950, “ the position estimation entity … transmits, to the UE, a sidelink PRS response that comprises assistance data associated with the sidelink anchor group for the on-demand sidelink PRS position estimation session. For example, the assistance data may include a sidelink anchor group identifier, a private key, a resource grant for transmission of a sidelink PRS trigger from the UE to the sidelink anchor group, a sidelink PRS pre-configuration associated with the sidelink anchor group …, a sidelink anchor identifier for a sidelink PRS trigger from the UE to the sidelink anchor group, or a combination thereof.”; PARA[0319], Fig.20 block2020, “ UE 302… receives, from the position estimation entity, a sidelink PRS response that comprises assistance data associated with a sidelink anchor group for the on-demand sidelink PRS position estimation session”; PARA[0329], Fig.22 at 2204, “a subset of SL anchors (here, SL anchors 1-3) are selected by positioning entity as one sidelink anchor group”; PARA[0308], “the position estimation entity that coordinates an on-demand SL PRS position estimation session may be a network component (e.g., gNB or LMF,…), while in other designs the position estimation entity… may be a UE (e.g., self-organized or UE-to-UE)”; PARA [0322], Fig.21, “to qualify as a sidelink anchor, the sidelink anchor may be associated with a known location (e.g., from a recent position estimation fix, etc.)”, i.e., the target UE receives from an entity separate from the anchors themselves a single message identifying a defined set of anchors 1-3, both collectively by anchor group identifier and individually by anchor identifier, that set being the first set of second apparatus from which the UE is to choose).
select, from the first set of one or more second apparatus, a subset of the one or more second apparatus for sidelink positioning; (PARA[0266], Fig. 12 block 1220, “ the target UE (e.g., processor(s) 332, on-demand PRS component 342, etc.) selects one or more candidate UEs for the sidelink-assisted position estimation procedure based at least in part upon the zone information.”; PARA[0282], Fig.13, “Circles are depicted in the grid which are marked to indicate the target UE, the selected candidate UEs, and the non-selected candidate UEs”; PARA[0332], Fig.22 at 2212, “In this case, sidelink anchors 2-3 transmit SL PRS responses, and sidelink anchor 1 may opt out of the SL PRS position estimation procedure”; PARA[0321], Fig.20, “the sidelink PRS exchange comprises blind decoding and/or descrambling only for SL PRS sidelink anchors from which a respective sidelink PRS trigger response that indicates acceptance of the sidelink PRS trigger is received”) i.e., the target UE itself divides the identified candidates into selected and non-selected and confines its subsequent positioning operations to the selected ones, being anchors 2 and 3 of the group 1-3, which is the selection of proper subset of the first set.
transmit, to the first apparatus, a second sidelink positioning protocol message comprising information pertaining to the subset of the one or more second apparatus. (PARA [0334], Fig.22 at 2218, “the target UE may consolidate measurement data from the sidelink anchors 2-3, and then send one report to the position estimation entity (one LPP session)”; PARA [0321], Fig.20, “ UE 302 may further transmit a measurement report based on the sidelink PRS exchange to the position estimation entity”; PARA [0316], Fig.22 at 2218, “the target UE may consolidate measurement data from the sidelink anchors 2-3, and then send one report to the position estimation entity (one LPP session)”; PARA[0321], Fig.20 block2040, “UE 302 may further transmit a measurement report based on the sidelink PRS exchange to the position estimation entity”; PARA[0316], Fig.19 block 1960, “the position estimation entity… receives one or more measurement reports associated with the on-demand sidelink PRS position estimation session”) i.e., the UE returns to the same entity from which it receives the assistance data a single report carrying information drawn from sidelink anchors 2-3, the selected subset, and not from sidelink anchor 1, which opted out.
Bao’s selection criteria of Figs. 12-13 and its anchor-group exchange of Figs. 19-22 are aspects of one disclosure directed to the same object, namely which sidelink UEs assist a target UE (PARA[0216], “The SL UEs that are assisting in position estimation of a target UE can impact various aspects associated with SL-assisted positioning, such as power consumption and/or position estimation accuracy”). Accordingly, applying Bao’s zone-based criteria to the anchor group supplied at Fig.22 at 2208 would have been obvious, because Bao contemplates the position estimation entity being a gNB (PARA[0308]) and zone information reaching the target UE from a gNB (PARA[0265], “a base station (e.g., gNB accumulates zone information for various UEs and then broadcasts the zone information associated with nearby zones)”).
However, Bao does not explicitly disclose that the first and second messages are second sidelink positioning protocol message, identifying the carrier instead as an LPP session (PARA [0334], “one LPP session”).
Oteri discloses that information of this same character, being information by which candidate anchor devices for a sidelink positioning procedure are identified, ranked, and selected, is carried in a sidelink positing protocol procedure message (PARA[0124], PARA[0133], “ the priority information may be included in a single stage sidelink control information (SCI), in a second stage SCI, in a PC5 radio resource control (RRC) message, or as part of positioning protocol assistance information in one of an LTE positioning protocol (LPP) message, an NR positioning protocol A (NRPPa) message, and/or a sidelink positioning protocol (SL-PP) message”; PARA [0120], Fig.13 block 1302, “a UE, such as UE 106, may decode and/or determine priority information associated with synchronization sources for one or more candidate anchor devices”; PARA[0122], Fig. 13 block 1306, “, the UE may select, based, at least in part, on the ranking…, one or more candidate devices to be used in the sidelink positioning procedure”; PARA[0130], Fig.14 block 1404, “ the UE may send, to a location management function (LMF), such as LMF 609, feedback regarding sidelink priority signaling, e.g., as assistance information”) i.e., Oteri routes over the sidelink positioning protocol both the assistance information a UE uses to choose among candidate anchor devices and the UE’s return signaling to the location server, which are the two message recited.
Bao and Oteri are analogous art because both are in the same field of endeavor of selecting sidelink anchor devices to support a sidelink positioning procedure for a target UE, and both address the same problem of determining which anchor devices the target UE should employ. Bao states that problem as “in sidelink environments, centralized scheduling and configuration of PRS may suffer from high overhead due to a dynamic topology” (PARA[0306]); Oteri states the same need as “For a specific target UE using a timing-based positioning method, how can the UE identify and prioritize assisting UEs that have the same synchronization reference” (Oteri, PARA[0099]). Both are consistent with applicant’s acknowledgement that frequent Anchor and Server UE discovery and selection “may result in additional delay for performing SL positioning, and thus potential degradation in the performance of location estimation” and produces “additional signaling overhead” (Specification, PARA [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have carried Bao’s assistance-data message (Fig. 22 at 2208) and Bao’s responsive measurement report (Fig. 22 at 2218) in sidelink positioning protocol message as taught by Oteri. Bao already transmits and receives the information the claim requires; what Bao leaves open is only which standardized protocol carries it, and Bao conveys that sidelink-specific information over LPP, a protocol defined for the Uu interface, while the anchors Bao identifies and reports on communicate with the target UE over PC5. Oteri supplies a small expressly enumerated set of carries for this content (Oteri, PARA [0124]), and one of ordinary skill choosing among them would have had good reason to select the sidelink positioning protocol, which is defined for exactly this content and whose use avoids overloading a Uu-interface protocol with sidelink-specific parameters. The result is predictable: the same information Bao already exchanges, conveyed over the protocol designated for it. This is the selection of one of a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 2, Bao in view of Oteri discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Bao further discloses select the subset of the one or more second apparatus based at least in part on a determination that a sidelink connection with the subset of the one or more second apparatus is able to be established (PARA [0332], Fig.22 t 2212, “SL anchors that received the SL PRS trigger may NACK/ACK the SL PRS trigger through SL. Here, ACK indicates acceptance of the SL PRS trigger rather than mere receipt of the SL PRS trigger, and ACK indicates rejection of the SL PRS trigger”; “a receiver UE (SL-anchor) sends ACK if the sidelink anchor is within the maximum range. In some designs, receiver UE (SL-anchor) sends NACK if the sidelink anchor is not available due to scheduling conflict”; PARA [0331], Fig.22 at 2210, “the SL PRS trigger may further define a maximum range for response and SL PRS (e.g., maximum {X} meters or maximum Y zones)”; PARA[0321], Fig.20 block 2040, “ the sidelink PRS exchange comprises blind decoding and/or descrambling only for SL PRS sidelink anchors from which a respective sidelink PRS trigger response that indicates acceptance of the sidelink PRS trigger is received”; PARA[0205], “ the UE 504 may reject the connection request 515 based on being unable to accommodate the unicast connection over the sidelink due to limited radio resources, a scheduling issue, etc.”) i.e., each candidate anchor reports whether it lies within sidelink range of the target UE and has the resources available to carry the exchange, the target UE confines its subset to those that answer affirmatively, and Bao identifies the same range and resource conditions as governing whether a unicast sidelink connection to given candite can be established at all.
The proposed combination and motivations for combining set forth in the rejection of Clam 1 apply to this Claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 3, Bao in view of Oteri discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Bao discloses that candidates are ranked and downselected using a pre-candidate figure of merit (PARA [0279], “the target UE may further determine a RSRP of at least one signal from at least one of the pluralities of candidate UEs, the selection at 1220 is further based on the RSRP determination”). However, Bao does not expressly disclose wherein the information pertaining to the subset of the one or more second apparatus comprises a priority value.
Oteri is added and it discloses this feature (PARA [0121], Fig.13 block 1304, “the UE may rank, prioritize, grade, order, classify, sort, arrange, organize, and/or categorize, based, at least in part, on whether the sidelink positioning procedure is network-based or Global Network Satellite System (GNSS) based, the one or more candidate anchor devices using the priority information”; PARA[0123], “the priority information may include a flag used to indicate an index of a level associated with a synchronization type, an in coverage/out of coverage flag, and/or a sidelink synchronization signal (SLSS) identifier (ID)”; PARA [0104], Fig.6, and PARA [0105], Fig.7, “the UE may use a flag used to indicate an index of a level, an in coverage/out of coverage flag (e.g., IIc and/or IC), and an SLSS ID to determine a priority level of the synchronization reference”; PARA [0130], Fig.14 block 1404, “the UE may send, to a location management function (LMF), such as LMF 609, feedback regarding sidelink priority signaling, e.g., as assistance information”; PARA [0142], “the feedback may include priority information”) i.e., the priority information takes the form of a discrete level index drawn from the eight-level tables of Figs. 6 and 7, and that level index is carried in the information the UE reports back to the first apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included Oteri’s priority value in the information Bao’s target UE reports concerning the selected subset. Bao’s position estimation entity must reconfigure the anchor group as anchors enter and exit the target UE’s neighborhood (PARA [0306]), and a bare list of anchor identifiers does not indicate how suitable each selected anchor is. Oteri’s priority value, already computed at the UE as part of the same selection, supplies that indication at the cost of a few bits and no additional measurement. This is the application of a known technique to a known method ready for improvement, yielding the predictable result of a report that better supports the entity’s reconfiguration decisions.
Regarding Claim 4, Bao in view of Oteri discloses all the limitations of Claim 3.
Bao discloses the determination whether a sidelink connection with candidate apparatus can be established, as set forth in the rejection of Claim 2 (PARA [0332], Fig.22 at 2212, “a receiver UE (SL-anchor) sends ACK if the sidelink anchor is within the maximum range”).
Oteri discloses that the candidate devices are ranked by the priority values and that the devices to be used are chosen based on that ranking (PARA [0122], Fig.13 block 1306, “the UE may select one or more highest ranked, prioritized, graded, ordered, classified, sorted, arranged, organized, and/or categorized candidate devices to be used in the sidelink positioning procedure”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have carried out Bao’s connection-establishment determination in the order fixed by Oteri’s priority ranking, so as to determine whether a sidelink connection with the one or more second apparatus is able to be established based at least in part on the priority value. Bao must test candidates for availability and Oteri supplies an ordering of those same candidates by suitability. Testing in an arbitrary order risk establishing connections to low-priority anchors and then discarding them, whereas testing in descending priority order returns the best available anchor on the earliest successful attempt. Bao identifies the cost such ordering avoids (PARA [0306], “centralized scheduling and configuration of PRS may suffer from high overhead due to a dynamic topology”). The result is predictable: fewer failed establishment attempts and reduced latency.
Regarding Claim 5, Bao in view of Oteri discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Bao discloses that the anchor group is dynamic and must be revised as anchors become unsuitable during a session (PARA[0306], Fig.18, “For a target UE, the SL PRS configuration should be updated when a SL anchor enters/exits its neighborhood”; PARA[0307], “particular SL anchors may not always be available for on-demand PRS in SL”). However, Bao does not disclose determine that a sidelink connection drops to a first candidate apparatus of the first set of the one or more second apparatus; and perform a reselection of a second candidate apparatus of the first set of the one or more second apparatus.
Keshavamurthy discloses these features (PARA [0091], Fig.4 block 401, “one of the active positioning anchors (UE-A1) of the target user device transmits a reference signal, such as SL-PRS. However, the transmission fails such that it is not detected by the target user device (denoted as UE-T in FIG. 4). For example, the reception quality (e.g., SL-PRS RSRP) of the SL-PRS transmitted by UE-A1 may drop below a certain threshold at the target user device. Thus, the positioning anchor UE-A1 is assumed to have failed”; PARA [0098], “the cause may comprise at least one of: a non-line-of-sight (NLOS) condition between the target user device and the at least one positioning anchor to be replaced, uplink transmission prioritization, de-prioritization of the existing session, or radio link failure”; PARA [0095], Fig.4 block 403, “the LMF triggers anchor reselection upon identifying the failed positioning anchor UE-A1 based on, for example, a drop in the SL-PRS reception quality below a certain threshold”; PARA [0110], Fig. 4 block 409, “the target user device determines, based on the assistance information, a subset of one or more candidate positioning anchors from the set of one or more discovered candidate positioning anchors”). i.e., the sidelink to one anchor then in use is determined to have dropped, radio link failure being an enumerated cause, whereupon a different anchor is reselected from the same set of candidates already known to the target UE.
Bao, Oteri, Keshavamurthy are analogous art because all three are directed to the selection and reselection of sidelink anchor devices supporting the positioning of a target UE.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated Keshavamurthy’s connection-failure-triggered reselection into the anchor section performed by Bao’s target UE.
Regarding Claim 6, Bao in view of Oteri discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Bao further discloses maintain the selected subset of the one or more second apparatus for sidelink positioning operation (PARA[0309], “Aspects of the disclosure are thereby directed to sidelink anchor groups that include a set of sidelink anchors that are each associated with a respective SL PRS “pre”-configuration for one or more future on-demand SL PRS position estimation procedures”; PARA[0307], “on-demand SL PRS configurations may have an expiration timer (e.g., preloaded SL PRS configuration for SL anchors may expire due to anchor movement)”; PARA[0333], Fig.22 at 2214-2216, “ a SL PRS exchange is performed between sidelink anchors 2-3 and the target UE”) i.e., the selected anchors are retained for use across the session and into subsequent on-demand procedures rather than discarded after single exchange, and are held until the configuration expires or is reconfigured.
The proposed combination and motivations for combining set forth in the rejection of Clam 1 apply to this Claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 7, Bao in view of Oteri discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Bao further discloses wherein the UE comprises a sidelink target UE (PARA [0317], Fig.20, “the UE that performs the process 2000 of FIG. 20 corresponds to a UE for which a position estimate is desired, generally referred to as a target UE”; PARA[0264], Fig.12, “ the process 1200 may be performed by a target UE (e.g., a UE for which position estimation is desired), such as UE 302”). i.e., the UE that receives the assistance data, selects the subset, and reports back is the target UE of the positioning session.
The proposed combination and motivations for combining set forth in the rejection of Clam 1 apply to this Claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 8, Bao in view of Oteri discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Bao further discloses wherein the first apparatus comprises one or more of a sidelink server UE or a location management function (PARA [0310], Fig.19, “the process 1900 may be performed by a position estimation entity, such as a UE (e.g., for UE-based position estimation) or a network component (e.g., gNB such as BS 304 for RAN-integrated LMF, or a core network-integrated LMF or a location server such as network entity 306, etc.)”; PARA[0308], “the position estimation entity that coordinates an on-demand SL PRS position estimation session may be a network component (e.g., gNB or LMF, similar to Uu case), while in other designs the position estimation entity that coordinates an on-demand SL PRS position estimation may be a UE (e.g., self-organized or UE-to-UE)”), i.e., the first apparatus from which the UE receives the assistance data is disclosed in the alternative as either a location management function or a UE performing the position-estimation function for another UE, meeting both alternatives of the recited group. Oteri likewise identifies the first apparatus as a location management function (Oteri, PARA [0130], Fig. 14, “the UE may send, to a location management function (LMF), such as LMF 609, feedback regarding sidelink priority signaling, e.g., as assistance information”).
The proposed combination and motivations for combining set forth in the rejection of Clam 1 apply to this Claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 9, Bao in view of Oteri discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Bao further discloses wherein the subset of the one or more second apparatus comprises one or more of a sidelink anchor UE or a sidelink server UE (PARA [0w322], Fig.21, “the process 2100 may be performed by a sidelink anchor, which may correspond to a UE such as UE 302. In some designs, to qualify as a sidelink anchor, the sidelink anchor may be associated with a known location (e.g., from a recent position estimation fix, etc.)”; PARA[0259], Fig.10, “at least one reference UE (e.g., a UE with a known location from a recent positioning fix, where such a location generally has a lower variance than a typical error estimate for UE position)”; PARA [0329], Fig. 22 at 2204, “slow-moving or semi-static UEs (customer premise equipment (CPE), RSU, slow moving UE etc.) may be selected as sidelink anchors for a sidelink anchor group”), i.e., the second apparatus making up the selected subset are sidelink anchor UEs having known locations.
The proposed combination and motivations for combining set forth in the rejection of Clam 1 apply to this Claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 10, Bao in view of Oteri discloses all the limitations of Claim 9.
Bao discloses dividing the known anchors into those placed in the configured group and those left out of it (PARA [0354], Fig.27, “each zone may have multiple candidate SL anchors. If all candidate SL anchors transmit and receive SL PRS, poor performance may result. In some designs, the position estimation entity (e.g., LMF, etc.) may select one UE (or some maximum number of UEs) in a zone as a delegate”; PARA [0335], Fig.23, “sidelink anchor group configuration 2300 includes a sidelink anchor group with a maximum of one sidelink anchor per-zone within a single adjacent zone from a target UE”). i.e., anchors known to the system but not chosen as the delegate remain available and take no part in the exchange.
However, Bao does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to maintain a set of inactive sidelink anchor UE that are not currently involved in a sidelink positioning operation.
Keshavamurthy is added and it disclose this feature (PARA [0070], “Herein candidate anchor UEs (candidate positioning anchors) refer to potential anchor UEs (positioning anchors) that are not yet active in supporting the positioning of the target UE (e.g., not yet transmitting SL-PRS), but have the potential to do so”; PARA [0072], Fig.3, “the candidate positioning anchor measurement may comprise discovery-related measurements corresponding to the anchor discovery message transmitted from the set of candidate positioning anchors 302, 303, 304, 305, 307, 308, 310, 311, 312, 313 (e.g., candidate anchor UEs), excluding the active positioning anchors 301, 306, 309”; PARA [0109], “The set of one or more discovered candidate positioning anchors refers to the candidate positioning anchor(s), from which the target user device has received a discovery message”), i.e., a set of anchor UEs define by their not being currently involved in the positioning operation is held at the target UE, separately from and in contradistinction to the active anchors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have caused Bao’s target UE to maintain such set of discovered but inactive candidate anchors. Bao’s target UE already learns of more anchors than it uses, since only a delegate per zone is activated (PARA [0354]). Discarding knowledge of the reminder means that on loss of an active anchor the UE must run fresh discovery cycle before it can replace it, incurring both delay and the signaling cost of that exchange, whereas retaining that knowledge costs only memory. Keshavamurthy identifies the resulting benefit (PARA [0079], “This may also make sidelink positioning more feasible in scenarios with a large number of candidate positioning anchors (e.g., in IoT use cases), and/or scenarios involving a mobile target UE and/or mobile positioning anchors (e.g., in V2X use cases)”). The predictable result is that a replacement is available immediately upon loss of an active anchor.
Regarding Claim 11, Bao in view of Oteri in further view of Keshavamurthy discloses
all the limitations of Claim 10.
Keshavamurthy further discloses select the subset of the one or more second apparatus for sidelink positioning based at least in part on the set of inactive sidelink anchor UE (PARA[0083], “ The target UE 300 then makes use of this assistance information to identify a subset of one or more candidate positioning anchors from the set of discovered candidate positioning anchors 302, 303, 304, 305, 307, 308, 310, 311, 312, 313, wherein the subset of one or more candidate positioning anchors fulfil at least one criterion associated with the failed positioning anchor 301 to be replaced”; PARA[0110], Fig.4 block 409, “ the target user device determines, based on the assistance information, a subset of one or more candidate positioning anchors from the set of one or more discovered candidate positioning anchors”; PARA [0112], “The subset of one or more candidate positioning anchors may comprise some, but not all, of the set of one or more discovered candidate positioning anchors”). i.e., the subset is drawn from, and is a proper subset of, the maintained set of discovered candidate anchors, which per PARA [0070] are those anchors not yet active in supporting the positioning of the target UE.
The proposed combination and motivations for combining set forth in the rejection of Clam 10 apply to this Claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 12, Bao discloses that the entity which supplies the assistance data and
receives the resulting report may itself be a UE rather than a network node (PARA [0308], “ the position estimation entity that coordinates an on-demand SL PRS position estimation may be a UE (e.g., self-organized or UE-to-UE)”; PARA [0310], “the process 1900 may be performed by a position estimation entity, such as a UE (e.g., for UE-based position estimation)”; PARA[0313], Fig.19 at 1930, “if the position estimation entity itself corresponds to one of the sidelink anchors in the sidelink anchor group, then the transmission at 1930 may include an internal logical transfer of data”).
Accordingly, Bao discloses a first user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the first UE to: (PARA [0170], Fig.3A, “The UE 302, the base station 304, and the network entity 306 include one or more processors 332, 384, and 394, respectively, for providing functionality relating to, for example, wireless communication”; PARA [0171], Fig.3A, “the on-demand PRS component 342, 388, and 398 may be memory modules stored in the memories 340, 386, and 396, respectively, that, when executed by the processors 332, 384, and 394… cause the UE 302,… to perform the functionality described herein”),
transmit, to a second UE, a first sidelink positioning protocol message comprising information for selecting a first set of one or more apparatus for sidelink positioning of the second UE (PARA [0315], Fig.19 block 1950, “the position estimation entity (e.g., transmitter 314 or 324 or 354 or 364, network transceiver(s) 380 or 390, data bus 334, etc.) transmits, to the UE, a sidelink PRS response that comprises assistance data associated with the sidelink anchor group for the on-demand sidelink PRS position estimation session”; PARA [0330], Fig.22 at 2208, “the position estimation entity may provide anchor group ID and/or private key, an anchor group designation with a reasonable GDOP coverage, a resource grant for SL PRS trigger, SL PRS pre-configuration(s) associated with the sidelink anchor group, SL anchor IDs for group-based request”), i.e., where the position estimation entity is embodied as a UE per PARA[0310], a first UE transmit to a second, target UE the information identifying the set of apparatus from which the second UE is to select.
receive, from the second UE, a second sidelink positioning protocol message comprising information pertaining to a subset of the one or more apparatus (PARA [0316], Fig.19 block 1960, “ the position estimation entity (e.g., receiver 312 or 322 or 352 or 362, network transceiver(s) 380 or 390, data bus 334, etc.) receives one or more measurement reports associated with the on-demand sidelink PRS position estimation session”; PARA [0334], Fig.22 at 2218, “he target UE may consolidate measurement data from the sidelink anchors 2-3, and then send one report to the position estimation entity (one LPP session)”), i.e., the first UE receives back a report carrying data drawn from the anchors the second UE actually used, being anchors 2 and 3 rather than the whole group.
However, Bao does not disclose that the first and second messages are sidelink positioning protocol message. Oteri discloses the sidelink positioning protocol message at (PARA[0124], PARA[0133], “ the priority information may be included in a single stage sidelink control information (SCI), in a second stage SCI, in a PC5 radio resource control (RRC) message, or as part of positioning protocol assistance information in one of an LTE positioning protocol (LPP) message, an NR positioning protocol A (NRPPa) message, and/or a sidelink positioning protocol (SL-PP) message”; PARA [0120], Fig.13 block 1302, “a UE, such as UE 106, may decode and/or determine priority information associated with synchronization sources for one or more candidate anchor devices”; PARA[0122], Fig. 13 block 1306, “, the UE may select, based, at least in part, on the ranking…, one or more candidate devices to be used in the sidelink positioning procedure”; PARA[0130], Fig.14 block 1404, “ the UE may send, to a location management function (LMF), such as LMF 609, feedback regarding sidelink priority signaling, e.g., as assistance information”) i.e., Oteri routes over the sidelink positioning protocol both the assistance information a UE uses to choose among candidate anchor devices and the UE’s return signaling to the location server, which are the two message recited.
Additionally, Bao’s disclosure of a UE-embodied position estimation entity is specific, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have implemented the position estimation entity as a UE, because Bao presents the network-embodied and UE-embodied implementations as art-recognized alternatives performing the identical coordinating function (PATA [0308]), and because a UE-embodied entity permits the positioning session to proceed where the target UE is out of network coverage. The substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.
Regarding Claim 13, Bao in view of Oteri discloses all the limitations of Claim 12.
Oteri further discloses wherein the information pertaining to the subset of the one or more apparatus comprises a priority value (PARA [0121], Fig.13 block 1304, “the UE may rank, prioritize, grade, order, classify, sort, arrange, organize, and/or categorize, based, at least in part, on whether the sidelink positioning procedure is network-based or Global Network Satellite System (GNSS) based, the one or more candidate anchor devices using the priority information”; PARA [0123], “the priority information may include a flag used to indicate an index of a level associated with a synchronization type, an in coverage/out of coverage flag, and/or a sidelink synchronization signal (SLSS) identifier (ID)”; PARA [0130], Fig.14, “the UE may send, to a location management function (LMF), such as LMF 609, feedback regarding sidelink priority signaling, e.g., as assistance information”).
The reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of claim 3 apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 14, Bao in view of Oteri discloses all the limitations of Claim 12.
Bao further discloses wherein the second UE comprises a sidelink target UE (PARA [0317], Fig.20, “the UE that performs the process 2000 of FIG. 20 corresponds to a UE for which a position estimate is desired, generally referred to as a target UE”), i.e., the UE that receives the anchor-group assistance data and returns the report is the target UE being positioned.
The proposed combination and the motivations for combining set forth in the rejection of Claim 12 apply to this Claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 15, Bao in view of Oteri discloses all the limitations of Claim 12.
Bao further discloses wherein the first UE comprises a sidelink server UE (PARA [0310], Fig.19, “the process 1900 may be performed by a position estimation entity, such as a UE (e.g., for UE-based position estimation)”; PARA [0308], “ the position estimation entity that coordinates an on-demand SL PRS position estimation may be a UE (e.g., self-organized or UE-to-UE)”), i.e., a UE that coordinates the positioning session and performs the position estimation on behalf of another UE, which is a sidelink server UE.
The proposed combination and the motivations for combining set forth in the rejection of Claim 12 apply to this Claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 16, Bao discloses a network entity for wireless communication,
comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the network entity to: (PARA [0170], Fig.3A, “The UE 302, the base station 304, and the network entity 306 include one or more processors 332, 384, and 394, respectively, for providing functionality relating to, for example, wireless communication”; PARA [0171], Fig.3A, “the on-demand PRS component 342, 388, and 398 may be memory modules stored in the memories 340, 386, and 396, respectively, that, when executed by the processors 332, 384, and 394… cause the UE 302,… to perform the functionality described herein”),
transmit, to a first user equipment (UE), a first sidelink positioning protocol message comprising information for selecting a first set of one or more second UE for sidelink positioning of the first UE (PARA [0310], Fig.19, “a core network-integrated LMF or a location server such as network entity 306, etc.)”; PARA [0312], Fig.19 1920, “configures a sidelink anchor group from among the plurality of sidelink anchors based on a set of criteria”; PARA [0314], Fig.19 block 1940, “receives, from a UE, a request to schedule an on-demand sidelink PRS position estimation session of the UE”; PARA [0315], Fig.19 block 1950, “transmits, to the UE, a sidelink PRS response that comprises assistance data associated with the sidelink anchor group for the on-demand sidelink PRS position estimation session”), i.e., the network entity assembles the group of anchor UEs and sends it to the first UE for use in positioning that UE.
receive, from the first UE, a second sidelink positioning protocol message comprising information pertaining to a subset of the one or more second UE (PARA [0316], Fig.19 block 1960, “receives one or more measurement reports associated with the on-demand sidelink PRS position estimation session”; PARA[0334], Fig.22 at 2218, “ the target UE may consolidate measurement data from the sidelink anchors 2-3, and then send one report to the position estimation entity (one LPP session)”), i.e., after supplying the group at block 1950, the network entity receives back at block 1960 a report pertaining to the anchors the UE actually used, in the order recited.
Oteri discloses the same exchange performed at the network entity in express terms (PARA[0138], Fig.15 at 1502, “a location management function (LMF), such as LMF 609, may receive, from a UE, such as UE 106, feedback regarding sidelink priority signaling, e.g., as assistance information”; PARA[0141], Fig.15 block 1508, “the LMF may indicate, to the UE, the selected one or more candidate devices to be used in the sidelink positioning procedure”; PARA [0142], “The priority information may be included in a single stage sidelink control information (SCI), in a second stage SCI, in a PC5 radio resource control (RRC) message, or as part of positioning protocol assistance information in one of an LTE positioning protocol (LPP) message, an NR positioning protocol A (NRPPa) message, and/or a sidelink positioning protocol (SL-PP) message”).
The analogous art finding and reasons for combination set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 apply with the equal force to this Claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 17, Bao in view of Oteri discloses all the limitations of Claim 16.
Oteri further discloses wherein the information pertaining to the subset of the one or more second UE comprises a priority value (PARA[0138], Fig.15, “ a location management function (LMF), such as LMF 609, may receive, from a UE, such as UE 106, feedback regarding sidelink priority signaling, e.g., as assistance information”; PARA[0142], “he feedback may include priority information” ; PARA[0123], “he priority information may include a flag used to indicate an index of a level associated with a synchronization type, an in coverage/out of coverage flag, and/or a sidelink synchronization signal (SLSS) identifier (ID)”).
The reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of claim 3 apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 18, Bao in view of Oteri discloses all the limitations of Claim 16.
Bao Further discloses wherein the subset of the one or more second UE comprises one or more of a sidelink anchor UE or a sidelink server UE (PARA[0322], Fig.21, “the process 2100 may be performed by a sidelink anchor, which may correspond to a UE such as UE 302”; PARA[0329], Fig.22 at 2204, “ slow-moving or semi-static UEs (customer premise equipment (CPE), RSU, slow moving UE etc.) may be selected as sidelink anchors for a sidelink anchor group”).
The proposed combination and the motivations for combining set forth in the rejection of Claim 16 apply to this Claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 19, Bao in view of Oteri discloses all the limitations of Claim 18.
Bao discloses that the network entity registers a population of anchors and configures the active group out of that population (PARA[0311], Fig.19 block 1910, “ the position estimation entity… performs sidelink anchor registration with a plurality of sidelink anchors”; PARA[0312], Fig.19 block 1920, “ the position estimation entity (e.g., processor(s) 332 or 384 or 394, on-demand PRS component 342 or 388 or 398, etc.) configures a sidelink anchor group from among the plurality of sidelink anchors based on a set of criteria”). i.e., registered anchors not placed in the group remain known to the network entity but take no part in the positioning operation.
However, Bao in view of Oteri does not expressly recite maintain a set of inactive sidelink anchor UE that are not currently involved in a sidelink positioning operation.
Keshavamurthy is added and it discloses this feature at the network entity (PARA [0070], “candidate anchor UEs (candidate positioning anchors) refer to potential anchor UEs (positioning anchors) that are not yet active in supporting the positioning of the target UE”; PARA [0085], Fig.3, “ the LMF 320 may be configured to: perform positioning anchor selection and reselection for the target UE 300; determine the need for a new positioning anchor to be added for the target UE 300”; PARA[0117], “This group may be determined by the LMF or another core network entity based on various characteristics of the anchors. For example, mobile UEs may be in Group #1, static UEs with known locations may be in Group #2, static UEs with unknown locations may be in Group #3, etc.”), i.e., the network entity maintains the candidate anchor population, sorted by characteristic, separately from the anchors presently active in the session.
The reason and rational set forth in the rejection of Claim 10 apply to this Claim and are incorporated herein by references, with the further reason that the network entity is the element that performs the replacement selection (Keshavamurthy, PARA [0085]) and therefore requires the pool of available replacement to be on hand when an active anchor fails.
Regarding Claim 20, Bao in view of Oteri discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, Claim
20 reciting the same receiving, selecting and transmitting operations in processor form.
Bao further discloses a processor for wireless communication, comprising: at least one controller coupled with at least one memory and configured to cause the processor to perform those operations (PARA [0195], Fig.4, “The at least one processor 410 may include any form of logic suitable for performing, or causing the components of the UE 400 to perform, at least the techniques described herein”; PARA [0196], Fig.4, “ The memory 414 may be on-board the at least one processor 410 (e.g., within the same integrated circuit (IC) package), and/or the memory 414 may be external to the at least one processor 410 and functionally coupled over a data bus”; PARA[0198], Fig. 4, “the sidelink manager 470 may be a hardware circuit (e.g., an ASIC, a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), etc.) within the UE 400”; PARA[0446], “The processor and the storage medium may reside in an ASIC. The ASIC may reside in a user terminal (e.g., UE)), i.e., a controller coupled with the memory and configured to cause the recited operations to be carried out, embodied as a hardware circuit residing within the UE.
The proposed combination and the motivation for combining set forth in the rejection of Claim1 apply to this Claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to DIKSHYA KANDEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0959. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. 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, Akwasi M Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/DIKSHYA KANDEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/AKWASI M SARPONG/SPE, Art Unit 2681
9/13/2026
Prosecution Insights