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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that the prior art references (Yerramalli, Fischer, and Rao) fails to show certain features of the Applicant invention (i.e. at least in part “the selection order of preference representing a preferred order for selecting one or more configurations among the plurality of configurations”).
In response the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments because of the following reasons:
First, on pg. 2 of the Applicant’s remarks mailed on 04/08/2026, the Applicant argued and/or stated that “The Office Action cites Paragraph 0147 of Rao and states that "starting use" is equivalent to "selection order." This is not accurate”.
In response, the Examiner kindly direct the Applicant to Rao, e.g. pp0190, which explicitly stated that “the WTRU may select the PRS configuration assigned/associated with the highest priority as the second PRS configuration”.
Furthermore, for argument’s sake, it’s inherent and/or readily understood by anyone of ordinary skill in the art that when a WTRU “start using” a PRS configuration with the highest priority from among other PRS configuration, the WTRU has “selected” the PRS configuration (see pp0147). Therefore, the claim does not uniquely and/or particularly define the at least claimed limitation in question so as to distinguish from the applied prior art. During patent examination, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. See also MPEP §2111. The claimed limitation is broadly claimed, therefore, is fairly characterized as discussed above.
Secondly, on pg. 3-4 of the Applicant’s remarks mailed on 04/08/2026, the Applicant presented three reasons why the prior art reference Rao is different from the Applicant’s invention.
In response the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments and kindly reminds the Applicant that, although, the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “By providing a ranked list of configurations, the network proactively tells the UE which setup is "cheapest" or most available from a network overhead perspective. The goal is to allow the UE to make a request that has the highest probability of being accepted without causing a resource conflict”), (i.e., “where a UE makes a Positioning Reference Signal (PRS) request that the network refuses because of a conflict”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). (Emphasis Added).
Therefore, the at least claimed limitation in question is broad and/or vague, hence cannot be readily distinguished from the applied prior arts. Thus, given the at least claimed limitation its broadest reasonable interpretations, Yerramalli in view of Fischer and Rao teaches the claimed limitations of at least independent claim 33 as discussed in the rejection below.
Therefore, the previous rejection is maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 33, 34, 36, and 38, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerramalli et al. (US Publication No. 20240172169) in view of Fischer et al. (US Publication No. 20230243913) and further in view of Rao et al. (US Publication No. 20240179583).
As to claims 33 and 38, Yerramalli teaches a method and a user equipment, comprising; at least one processor; and at least one memory, the at least one memory storing instructions, that when executed by the at least one processor (fig. 1, fig. 8), cause the user equipment to perform at least the following: obtaining a plurality of configurations for signals that enable positioning that can be undertaken by a network (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, and pp0136, the UE 200 may receive posSIBs including a plurality of PRS configurations such as a first PRS configuration 1504, a second PRS configuration 1506, and a third PRS configuration 1508); receiving, from the network, an order of preference for the plurality of configurations (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, pp0135, pp0136, UE 200 may be configured to associate the symbol sets 1512, 1514, 1516 with relative priority values, pp0136, i.e. the first PRS configuration 1504 is associated with 1514 (priority 2), the second PRS configuration 1506 is associated with 1516 (priority 3), and the third PRS configuration 1508 is associated with 1512, 1516. The UE 200 may be configured to request the second PRS configuration 1506 because the third set of symbols 1516 is classified as Priority 3); and transmitting, to the network, one or more requests for resources for the signals that enable positioning, the one or more requests indicating at least some of the plurality of configurations for signals that enable positioning (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, pp019, pp0150, UE 200 may generate a MO-LR Request including the preferred PRS configuration parameters 902 and/or a DL-PRS configuration identifier based on at least one of the plurality of PRS configurations provided at stage 1802. In an embodiment, the UE 200 may provide a request for a preferred PRS configuration, then provide the PRS configuration request to the gNB 110a, or other network entity, via a signaling protocol such as the MO-LR request). However, fails to explicitly teach transmitting the order of preference for the plurality of configurations.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Fischer teaches the concept of transmitting the order of preference for the plurality of configurations (fig. 1, fig. 8, pp0119, the UE 105 may have one or more preconfigured or predefined DL-PRS configurations available which may be requested on-demand. The LPP Request Assistance Data message may include the DL-PRS Configuration Identifier/Index of a desired on-demand DL-PRS configuration (or a list of desired DL-PRS Configuration Identifications/Indices sorted according to priority), pp0117, additional parameters for indicating preferences for DL-PRS, and Clm. 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yerramalli with the teachings of Fischer to achieve the goal of efficiently and accurately realizing higher positioning accuracy and/or lower latency positioning requirements in a communication system (Fischer, pp0031). However, they failed to explicitly teach that the order of preference is a selection order of preference representing a preferred order for selecting one or more configurations among the plurality of configurations.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Rao teaches the concept of that order of preference (priority) is a selection order of preference representing a preferred order for selecting one or more configurations among the plurality of configurations (fig. 4, pp0146, trigger for starting use of the new PRS configuration may include reception of an indication from a network, pp0147, starting use (i.e. select) of the new PRS configuration may include priority. For example, the new PRS configuration may be used when the priority associated with the new PRS configuration is higher than or equal to the existing PRS configuration or other data transmission/reception, and pp0125, pp0190, WTRU may select a new PRS configuration from the list of pre-configurations, assigned or associated with the highest priority). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yerramalli and Fischer with the teachings of Rao to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably providing a communication system for supporting positioning service continuity with low latency and high accuracy (Rao, pp0088).
As to claim 34, Yerramalli in view of Fischer and Rao teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. However, Yerramalli fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more requests to the network comprise a reason for each configuration included in the one or more requests.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Fischer teaches the concept wherein the one or more requests to the network comprise a reason for each configuration included in the one or more requests (fig. 1, fig. 8, pp0119, the UE 105 may have one or more preconfigured or predefined DL-PRS configurations available which may be requested on-demand. The LPP Request Assistance Data message may include the DL-PRS Configuration Identifier/Index of a desired on-demand DL-PRS configuration (or a list of desired DL-PRS Configuration Identifications/Indices sorted according to priority), and fig. 9, fig. 10). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yerramalli with the teachings of Fischer to achieve the goal of efficiently and accurately realizing higher positioning accuracy and/or lower latency positioning requirements in a communication system (Fischer, pp0031).
As to claim 36, Yerramalli in view of Fischer and Rao teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Yerramalli further teaches wherein the one or more requests are adapted based on data received from the network (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, pp019, pp0150, UE 200 may generate a MO-LR Request including the preferred PRS configuration parameters 902 and/or a DL-PRS configuration identifier based on at least one of the plurality of PRS configurations provided at stage 1802. In an embodiment, the UE 200 may provide a request for a preferred PRS configuration, then provide the PRS configuration request to the gNB 110a, or other network entity, via a signaling protocol such as the MO-LR request).
Claim(s) 39, 40, and 43-45, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerramalli et al. (US Publication No. 20240172169) in view of Rao et al. (US Publication No. 20240179583).
As to claim 39, Yerramalli teaches a network apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory, the at least one memory storing instructions, that when executed by the at least one processor (fig. 1 and fig. 8), cause the network apparatus at least to perform: transmitting, to one or more user equipment, information indicative of a plurality of configurations for signals that enable positioning that can be undertaken by the network (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, and pp0136, the UE 200 may receive posSIBs including a plurality of PRS configurations such as a first PRS configuration 1504, a second PRS configuration 1506, and a third PRS configuration 1508) and an order of preference for the plurality of configurations (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, pp0135, pp0136, UE 200 may be configured to associate the symbol sets 1512, 1514, 1516 with relative priority values, pp0136, i.e. the first PRS configuration 1504 is associated with 1514 (priority 2), the second PRS configuration 1506 is associated with 1516 (priority 3), and the third PRS configuration 1508 is associated with 1512, 1516. The UE 200 may be configured to request the second PRS configuration 1506 because the third set of symbols 1516 is classified as Priority 3). However, failed to explicitly teach that the order of preference is a selection order of preference representing a preferred order for selecting one or more configurations from the plurality of configurations.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Rao teaches the concept of that order of preference (priority) is a selection order of preference representing a preferred order for selecting one or more configurations from the plurality of configurations (fig. 4, pp0146, trigger for starting use of the new PRS configuration may include reception of an indication from a network, pp0147, starting use (i.e. select) of the new PRS configuration may include priority. For example, the new PRS configuration may be used when the priority associated with the new PRS configuration is higher than or equal to the existing PRS configuration or other data transmission/reception, and pp0125, pp0190, WTRU may select a new PRS configuration from the list of pre-configurations, assigned or associated with the highest priority). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yerramalli with the teachings of Rao to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably providing a communication system for supporting positioning service continuity with low latency and high accuracy (Rao, pp0088).
As to claim 40, Yerramalli in view of Rao teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Yerramalli further teaches wherein the network apparatus receives, from a plurality of node apparatus, data indicative of configurations for signals that enable positioning undertaken by the plurality of node apparatus (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, pp0063, Information provided by the gNBs 110a, 110b, and/or the ng-eNB 114 to the LMF 120 using NRPPa may include timing and configuration information for directional SS or PRS transmissions and location coordinates) and uses the data indicative of configurations to determine the plurality of configurations for the signals that enable positioning that can be undertaken by the network (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, pp0063, Information provided by the gNBs 110a, 110b, and/or the ng-eNB 114 to the LMF 120 using NRPPa may include timing and configuration information for directional SS or PRS transmissions and location coordinates, and pp0136, posSIBs including a plurality of PRS configurations such as a first PRS configuration 1504, a second PRS configuration 1506, and a third PRS configuration 1508). However, failed to explicitly teach that the order of preference is the selection order of preference for the plurality of configurations.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Rao teaches the concept that the order of preference is the selection order of preference for the plurality of configurations (fig. 4, pp0146, trigger for starting use of the new PRS configuration may include reception of an indication from a network, pp0147, starting use (i.e. select) of the new PRS configuration may include priority. For example, the new PRS configuration may be used when the priority associated with the new PRS configuration is higher than or equal to the existing PRS configuration or other data transmission/reception, and pp0125, pp0190, WTRU may select a new PRS configuration from the list of pre-configurations, assigned or associated with the highest priority). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yerramalli with the teachings of Rao to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably providing a communication system for supporting positioning service continuity with low latency and high accuracy (Rao, pp0088).
As to claim 43, Yerramalli in view of Rao teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Yerramalli further teaches wherein the information indicative of the plurality of configurations for the signals that enable positioning that can be undertaken by the network (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, and pp0136, the UE 200 may receive posSIBs including a plurality of PRS configurations such as a first PRS configuration 1504, a second PRS configuration 1506, and a third PRS configuration 1508) and an order of preference for the plurality of configurations are transmitted to the one or more user equipment via one or more node apparatus (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, pp0135, pp0136, UE 200 may be configured to associate the symbol sets 1512, 1514, 1516 with relative priority values, pp0136, i.e. the first PRS configuration 1504 is associated with 1514 (priority 2), the second PRS configuration 1506 is associated with 1516 (priority 3), and the third PRS configuration 1508 is associated with 1512, 1516. The UE 200 may be configured to request the second PRS configuration 1506 because the third set of symbols 1516 is classified as Priority 3). However, failed to explicitly teach that the order of preference is the selection order of preference for the plurality of configurations.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Rao teaches the concept that the order of preference is the selection order of preference for the plurality of configurations (fig. 4, pp0146, trigger for starting use of the new PRS configuration may include reception of an indication from a network, pp0147, starting use (i.e. select) of the new PRS configuration may include priority. For example, the new PRS configuration may be used when the priority associated with the new PRS configuration is higher than or equal to the existing PRS configuration or other data transmission/reception, and pp0125, pp0190, WTRU may select a new PRS configuration from the list of pre-configurations, assigned or associated with the highest priority). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yerramalli with the teachings of Rao to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably providing a communication system for supporting positioning service continuity with low latency and high accuracy (Rao, pp0088).
As to claim 44, Yerramalli in view of Rao teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Yerramalli further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the network apparatus to determine locations of the one or more user equipment (fig. 1, fig. 8, pp0125, the LMF 120 may initiate LPP and possibly NRPPa procedures to obtain the location of the UE 105).
As to claim 45, Yerramalli in view of Rao teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Yerramalli further teaches wherein the network apparatus comprises a Location Management Function (LMF) (fig. 1, fig. 8, pp0125, the LMF 120 may initiate LPP and possibly NRPPa procedures to obtain the location of the UE 105).
Claim(s) 41 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerramalli et al. (US Publication No. 20240172169) in view of Rao et al. (US Publication No. 20240179583) and further in view of Fischer et al. (US Publication No. 20230243913).
As to claim 41, Yerramalli in view of Rao teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Yerramalli further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the network apparatus to receive one or more positioning requests from the one or more user equipment, wherein the one or more positioning requests indicate at least some of the plurality of configurations for signals that enable positioning (fig. 1, fig. 8, fig. 15, pp019, pp0150, UE 200 may generate a MO-LR Request including the preferred PRS configuration parameters 902 and/or a DL-PRS configuration identifier based on at least one of the plurality of PRS configurations provided at stage 1802. In an embodiment, the UE 200 may provide a request for a preferred PRS configuration, then provide the PRS configuration request to the gNB 110a, or other network entity, via a signaling protocol such as the MO-LR request). However, failed to explicitly teach that the order of preference is the selection order of preference for the plurality of configurations.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Rao teaches the concept that the order of preference is the selection order of preference for the plurality of configurations (fig. 4, pp0146, trigger for starting use of the new PRS configuration may include reception of an indication from a network, pp0147, starting use (i.e. select) of the new PRS configuration may include priority. For example, the new PRS configuration may be used when the priority associated with the new PRS configuration is higher than or equal to the existing PRS configuration or other data transmission/reception, and pp0125, pp0190, WTRU may select a new PRS configuration from the list of pre-configurations, assigned or associated with the highest priority). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yerramalli with the teachings of Rao to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably providing a communication system for supporting positioning service continuity with low latency and high accuracy (Rao, pp0088). However, Yerramalli fails to explicitly teach transmitting the order of preference for the plurality of configurations.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Fischer teaches the concept of transmitting the order of preference for the plurality of configurations (fig. 1, fig. 8, pp0119, the UE 105 may have one or more preconfigured or predefined DL-PRS configurations available which may be requested on-demand. The LPP Request Assistance Data message may include the DL-PRS Configuration Identifier/Index of a desired on-demand DL-PRS configuration (or a list of desired DL-PRS Configuration Identifications/Indices sorted according to priority), pp0117, additional parameters for indicating preferences for DL-PRS, and Clm. 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yerramalli and Rao with the teachings of Fischer to achieve the goal of efficiently and accurately realizing higher positioning accuracy and/or lower latency positioning requirements in a communication system (Fischer, pp0031).
As to claim 42, Yerramalli in view of Rao teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. However, Yerramalli fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more requests to the network comprise a reason for each configuration included in the one or more requests.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Fischer teaches the concept wherein the one or more requests to the network comprise a reason for each configuration included in the one or more requests (fig. 1, fig. 8, pp0119, the UE 105 may have one or more preconfigured or predefined DL-PRS configurations available which may be requested on-demand. The LPP Request Assistance Data message may include the DL-PRS Configuration Identifier/Index of a desired on-demand DL-PRS configuration (or a list of desired DL-PRS Configuration Identifications/Indices sorted according to priority), and fig. 9, fig. 10). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yerramalli and Rao with the teachings of Fischer to achieve the goal of efficiently and accurately realizing higher positioning accuracy and/or lower latency positioning requirements in a communication system (Fischer, pp0031).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMONIYI OBAYANJU whose telephone number is (571)270-5885. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 10:30-7pm.
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, ANTHONY S ADDY can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
/OMONIYI OBAYANJU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights