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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses the phrases “The present disclosure..” (1st line), “The present disclosure may be applied ..” (3rd line), “Disclosed are a …” (2nd last line), which can be implied. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 16 – 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP TR 23.700-86 V0.3.0 (2022-6) (hereafter 3GPP; which has been provided in the International Search Report).
Regarding claim 16, 3GPP discloses a method performed by a location management function (LMF) in a communication system (page 38;, section 6.7), the method comprising:
receiving, from an access and mobility management function (AMF), a location request message including an identity of a target user equipment (UE) (page 39, Section 6.7.3.1, Fig. 6.7.3.1-1: steps 0 and 1 and associated description below the figure);
transmitting, to the target UE, via the AMF, a request message for a sidelink (SL) location including information for identifying at least one candidate anchor UE (page 39, Section 6.7.3.1, Fig. 6.7.3.1-1: steps 2 and 3; wherein via AMF is as shown in the figure);
receiving, from the target UE, a response message for the SL location including information on at least one anchor UE discovered by the target UE, as a response to the request message for the SL location (Section 6.7.3.1, page 40, steps 5 and 6; Fig. 6.7.3.1-1: steps 5 and 6);
and identifying the at least one anchor UE for performing an SL positioning procedure (page 40, Section 6.7.3.1, steps 6 and 7; Fig. 6.7.3.1-1: steps 6 and 7).
3GPP does not disclose the response message is received via AMF. However, this is an obvious variation of what 3GPP discloses. In, Fig. 6.7.3.1-1, 3GPP discloses in step 2, the LMF send the positioning message via the AMF. Sending the response message via the AMF is obvious to try or an obvious variation of this (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E & F).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to send the message via the AMF because the AMF could anchor as an anchor or routing point that selects the correct LMF for positioning.
Regarding claim 17, 3GPP discloses the response message for the SL location further includes capability information for the at least one anchor UE (page 42, bullet # 3: “LMF obtains capability information in terms of LCS and ranging/sidelink positioning and available location information of a number of UEs within a region of interest ….”).
Regarding claim 18, 3GPP discloses the location request message further includes at least one of the information for identifying the at least one candidate anchor UE, information on a required quality of service (QoS), or capability information for the target UE (inherent in page 42, bullet #3 and in page 40, section 6.8.1, UE1 since the response message has capability information), and wherein the identity of the target UE includes a subscription permanent identifier (SUPI) (page 87, section 6.22.3, bullet #1: “The UEs may be identified by GPSls or SUPls….”).
Regarding claim 19, 3GPP discloses obtaining, from the target UE, information on SL location measurements for the target UE and the at least one anchor UE (page 39, Section 6.7.3.1, Fig. 6.7.3.1-1: steps 4 and 5);
and determining a location for the target UE based on the information on the SL location measurements (page 40, step 7 discloses “The LMF triggers the serving A.. MF to initiate the positioning procedure. …. The LMF determines the location of UE1 based on the SL positioning data received in step 5 and the location of UE2.”).
Claim 20 is similarly analyzed as claim 16, with claim 20 reciting equivalent operations as seen from the UE side.
Claim 21 is similarly analyzed as claim 17.
Regarding claim 22, 3GPP does not disclose identifying whether another discovery operation has already been performed by the target UE, wherein the discovery operation for the SL positioning procedure is performed, in case that the another discovery operation has not already been performed by the target UE.
However, this is obvious to try since if no discovery has been performed, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do one. This requires a few lines of software code that checks the above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to do a discovery if one has not already been done as this would help reduce overhead.
Regarding claim 23, 3GPP discloses transmitting, to the LMF, information on SL location measurements for the target UE and the at least one anchor UE (page 39, Section 6.7.3.1, Fig. 6.7.3.1-1: steps 4 and 5).
Claim 24 is similarly analyzed as claim 16, with claim 24 reciting equivalent apparatus limitations. Communication unit and controller are inherent in any wireless system components.
Claim 25 is similarly analyzed as claim 17.
Claim 26 is similarly analyzed as claim 18.
Claim 27 is similarly analyzed as claim 19.
Claim 28 is similarly analyzed as claim 20, with claim 28 reciting equivalent apparatus limitations. Transceiver and controller are inherent in any wireless system components.
Claim 29 is similarly analyzed as claim 17.
Claim 30 is similarly analyzed as claim 22.
Claim 31 is similarly analyzed as claim 23.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
The following patents/publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to SL positioning and UE discovery:
Sirotkin et al. (US 20230125160 A1) discloses Sidelink Positioning Architecture for Wireless Communications.
Edge et al. (US 20230362641 A1) discloses Signaling and Procedures for Supporting Positioning Reference Units.
Manolakos et al. (US 20240031978 A1) discloses Mobility Analytics Exchange Between Network Entities.
Ramachandran et al. (US 20250168808 A1) discloses Enhanced Ranging and Positioning Services in Wireless Networks.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is (571)272-1043. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/ADOLF DSOUZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights