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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 17th, 2025, has been considered and made of record in the application file history.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16, 22, 23, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 16 recites “calculating a relative timing of an absolute timing for sending or receiving of a second SL PRS to the absolute timing for sending or receiving of the first SL PRS.” The phrase “a relative timing of an absolute timing” is indefinite because the preposition “of” does not clearly convey a defined mathematical or technical relationship between the “relative timing” and the “absolute timing.” See MPEP § 2173.02. As written, the phrase is susceptible to multiple conflicting interpretations: the relative timing could be “derived from,” “equal to,” “characterizing,” or bearing some other undefined relationship to the absolute timing. The preposition “to” in “of an absolute timing … to the absolute timing” compounds this ambiguity because it appears to serve as a mathematical operator, suggesting, for example, “relative to” or “subtracted from” yet its intended meaning is not self-evident from the claim language alone. Critically, the claim does not define what mathematical operation the word “calculating” entails. It is therefore unclear whether the resulting “relative timing” is a difference, an offset, a ratio, or some other computed value. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation with reasonable certainty.
The claim further recites “wherein the absolute timing for sending or receiving of the first SL PRS is an absolute timing for sending or receiving of any SL PRS in the absolute timing for sending or receiving of the at least one SL PRS.” This language is circular: it defines the “first SL PRS” as being “any SL PRS” drawn from a set, without providing any meaningful selection criteria that would distinguish the “first SL PRS” from any other member of the set. The use of the singular phrase “in the absolute timing” when referring to what should logically be a set of absolute timings is grammatically unclear and further compounds the indefiniteness. An identical deficiency appears in the definition of the “second SL PRS,” which is defined as “any SL PRS other than” the first SL PRS from the same set. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
In addition, the claim recites “at least one SL PRS” as the initial set from which the first and second SL PRS are drawn. However, the claim subsequently requires both a “first SL PRS” and a “second SL PRS” that are different from each other, which logically necessitates at least two distinct SL PRS events. The recitation of “at least one” is internally inconsistent with this requirement, leaving the minimum scope of the claim unclear.
The term “relative timing” appears to carry different meanings across the claims. In Claim 2, the phrase “a relative timing for SL PRS sending” appears to denote a timing parameter or value used in connection with SL PRS transmission. In Claim 16, however, the phrase “a relative timing of an absolute timing … to the absolute timing” appears to denote a computed quantity derived from two absolute timing values. Because the same term is used with apparently different meanings in related claims, the scope of “relative timing” as used in Claim 16 is rendered unclear. See MPEP § 2173.05(a).
Claim 16 further recites “determining … an absolute timing for sending or receiving of a first SL PRS as a reference timing, wherein the absolute timing for sending or receiving of the first SL PRS is an absolute timing for sending or receiving of any SL PRS.” The designation of a reference timing is technically critical in sidelink positioning because the reference timing serves as the baseline from which all subsequent relative timing calculations are performed, and its selection directly determines the calibration result. Despite this significance, the claim provides no selection criteria for the reference timing. It states only that “any” SL PRS may serve as the reference. This renders the “determining” step effectively hollow, because if any PRS qualifies as the reference, there is no meaningful decision for the second UE to make. Furthermore, the phrase “as a reference timing” is ambiguous: it is unclear whether the absolute timing is merely labeled as the reference (adding no functional limitation), functionally designated as the reference (but without any stated criteria governing the designation), or simply equated with the reference timing (reducing “reference timing” to a synonym for the absolute timing of the first SL PRS). The combination of an unconstrained selection (“any”) with a technically significant designation (“reference timing”) renders the scope of the claim unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Because different choices of reference timing necessarily yield different relative timing values and therefore different calibration results. The claim’s coverage of every possible permutation of reference selection, without distinguishing among them or constraining the selection in any way, further compounds the indefiniteness. One of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine whether a particular implementation infringes the claim regardless of which SL PRS is selected as the reference, or only when a specific selection criterion is employed. See MPEP § 2173.02.
Independent claim 22 recites substantially identical language from the perspective of a base station rather than a second UE. Claim 22 is rejected on the same grounds and for the same reasons set forth above with respect to independent claim 16.
Dependent claim 23 inherits the issues discussed above for independent claim 22 and are rejected on the same grounds and for the same reasons set forth above with respect to independent 22.
For purposes of examination under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, and notwithstanding the above indefiniteness rejection, the Examiner applies the broadest reasonable interpretation of Claims 16 and 22 as follows: the claims require (1) obtaining absolute timings associated with a plurality of SL PRS events; (2) selecting one of those absolute timings as a reference timing; (3) computing a time difference between a second absolute timing and the selected reference timing; and (4) sending the computed time difference to the first UE (Claim 16) or to a UE (Claim 22). This interpretation is applied in the corresponding prior art rejections set forth below. See MPEP § 2173.06 (the examiner applies the broadest reasonable interpretation to indefinite claims and rejects under both § 112(b) and the applicable prior art provisions).
Claim 24 depends from claim 21, which in turn depends from independent claim 20. As currently amended, claim 20 recites “[a] method for timing information interaction, performed by a base station, comprising: sending timing information ... wherein the timing information is …” Applicant’s amended claim 20 now removes the previous recitation of “a first user equipment (UE)” from claim 20, such that the amended claim no longer introduces “a first UE” as an antecedent. Claim 21, which intervenes between claim 20 and claim 24, likewise does not introduce “a first UE.” Claim 24, however, recites in-part “wherein sending the timing information to the first UE further comprises ….” … “obtaining a timing offset of a downlink (DL) radio frame of a serving cell of the first UE” and “obtaining a clock offset of the first UE,” both of which employ the definite article “the” presupposing that “a first UE” has been previously introduced in the claim chain. Because no prior claim in the dependency chain provides proper antecedent basis for the term “the first UE,” it is unclear to which entity the claim refers. See MPEP § 2173.05(e) (a claim is indefinite when it uses a definite article to refer to an element that lacks antecedent basis in the claim or any claim from which it depends).
Additionally, claim 25 depends from claim 24 and inherits the same antecedent basis deficiency. Claim 25 recites “the timing offset of the DL radio frame of the serving cell of the first UE” and “the clock offset of the first UE,” both of which rely on the antecedent introduced in claim 24, which itself lacks proper antecedent basis as discussed above. Accordingly, claim 25 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ganesan et al., U.S. Publication Number 2023/0199802 A1 (hereinafter Ganesan).
Regarding claim 1, Ganesan discloses a method for timing information interaction, performed by a first user equipment (UE) (e.g., RX UE) (i.e., Ganesan discloses a sidelink positioning method performed by UEs. A TX UE and RX UE exchange time stamp information for the purpose of calibrating synchronization timing used in SL PRS transmission and reception) (see paragraphs [0131 & 0135]), comprising:
receiving timing information sent by a second UE (e.g., TX UE) (i.e., The TX UE (second UE) “includes time stamp information either in SCI, a MAC CE, PDCP, RLC headers, and/or control PDUs.” The RX UE (first UE) receives this time stamp information from the TX UE (second UE) (see paragraph [0135]), wherein the timing information is configured to calibrate timing information of a sidelink (SL) positioning reference signal (PRS) (i.e., The purpose of the timing exchange is to “synchronize UEs belonging to different synchronization sources to a common synchronization timing” for SL PRS. After the exchange, “the TX UE may estimate a round-trip time and calibrate synchronization timing.” The calibration is performed “together with a SL PRS transmission and reception to calibrate synchronization timing) (see paragraphs [0131 & 0135-0137]).
Regarding claim 2, Ganesan teaches all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Ganesan teaches the method, wherein the timing information comprises at least one of: an absolute timing for SL PRS sending (i.e., The TX UE (second UE) “includes time stamp information” relating to SL PRS transmission timing. The time stamp represents an absolute timing for SL PRS sending. The RX UE (first UE) receives this absolute timing from the TX UE (second UE)) (see paragraph [0135]); a relative timing for SL PRS sending; a timing offset of an SL link of the first UE; an absolute timing for SL PRS receiving (i.e., The RX UE (first UE), “after receiving a time stamp, calculates its own time stamp.” The RX UE’s own time stamp represents an absolute timing for SL PRS receiving. This information is generated at the first UE based on timing information received from the second UE) (see paragraph [0135]); a relative timing for SL PRS receiving; a clock offset of the first UE; or a timing offset for timing of a downlink (DL) radio frame of a serving cell of the first UE (i.e., The gNB provides “calibration offset values with respect to each synchronization source” where “reference timing and/or numerology for the offset may be calculated with respect to a coreset 0 and/or a physical broadcast channel (‘PBCH’).” CORESET#0 and PBCH are components of the DL radio frame of the serving cell of the RX UE (first UE). While this offset comes from the gNB rather than the second UE, DL PRS from the gNB is used as “a common reference timing for SL PRS transmission and/or reception,” and the TX UE (second UE) may incorporate this DL-referenced timing into its time stamp exchange with the RX UE (first UE)) (see paragraphs [0132-0133]).
Regarding claim 4, Ganesan teaches all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Ganesan teaches the method, wherein a timing offset of an SL link comprises a timing offset of an SL link radio frame of the first UE relative to a reference timing (i.e., Ganesan teaches that the RX UE’s (first UE’s) SL link timing may be offset from a common reference timing. The gNB provides “calibration offset values with respect to each synchronization source” to enable UEs, including the RX UE (first UE), to calibrate their SL timing) (See paragraphs [0131 & 0133]), and the timing offset relative to the reference timing comprises at least one of: a timing relative to the DL radio frame of the serving cell of the first UE (i.e., A measurement from DL PRS may be used as a common reference timing for SL PRS transmission and/or reception.” DL PRS is part of the DL radio frame of the serving cell. The RX UE (first UE) uses this DL PRS as a reference for its SL PRS timing. Additionally, the calibration offset is calculated “with respect to a coreset 0 and/or a physical broadcast channel (‘PBCH’)” Both are in the DL radio frame of the RX UE’s (first UE’s) serving cell) (see paragraphs [0132-0133]); a timing relative to a radio frame of an SL link of a reference UE; a timing relative to a DL radio frame of a network device for the serving cell of the first UE (i.e., CORESET#0 and PBCH are transmitted by the gNB (network device) for the serving cell of the RX UE (first UE). The offset calculated with respect to CORESET#0/PBCH is therefore a timing relative to the DL radio frame of the network device for the serving cell of the first UE) (See paragraphs [0133]); or a timing relative to a DL radio frame of a UE or a network device of a reference cell.
Regarding claim 7, Ganesan teaches all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Ganesan teaches the method, further comprising: receiving the timing information sent by the second UE via at least one of following messages: a sidelink control information (SCI) message; a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) message (i.e., The TX UE (second UE) “includes time stamp information either in SCI, a MAC CE, PDCP, RLC headers, and/or control PDUs where it may be groupcast or unicast based on one-to-one and/or one-to-many calculations of SL positioning.” The RX UE (first UE) receives this timing information from the TX UE (second UE) via SCI and/or MAC CE messages) (see paragraph [0135]); a radio resource control (RRC) message; or a non-access stratum (NAS) message.
Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and recites that “the NAS message comprises at least one of: a long term evolution positioning protocol (LPP) message of general mobile communication technology; an SL LPP message of SL mobile communication technology; or a PC5-S message.” Claim 7, from which claim 8 depends, recites receiving timing information via at least one of: a sidelink control information (SCI) message; a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) message; a radio resource control (RRC) message; or a non-access stratum (NAS) message. Because claim 7 is written in the alternative, the Examiner need only address one of the recited alternatives. See MPEP § 2111.04. As set forth in the § 102 rejection of claim 7, Ganesan anticipates the claim by teaching that the TX UE (second UE) sends timing information specifically, “time stamp information” to the RX UE (first UE) “either in SCI, a MAC CE, a PDCP, RLC headers, and/or control protocol data units (‘PDUs’)” (Ganesan [0135]). The rejection of claim 7 was predicated on the SCI message and/or MAC CE message alternatives not the NAS message alternative. Claim 8 further narrows only the NAS message alternative by specifying the type of NAS message (LPP, SL LPP, or PC5-S). Because claim 8 does not impose any additional limitation on the SCI or MAC CE alternatives that were relied upon in the anticipation rejection of claim 7, and because the additional specificity recited in claim 8 pertains exclusively to a non-elected alternative, claim 8 does not further restrict the scope of the claim beyond what was already addressed. Ganesan therefore anticipates claim 8 for the same reasons it anticipates claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, Ganesan teaches all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Ganesan teaches the method, further comprising: receiving timing synchronization source information sent by the second UE (i.e., broadly reads on the teaching of Ganesan that a TX UE includes times stamp information either in SCI where it may be groupcast or unicast based on one-to-one and/or one-to-many calculations of SL positioning. In various embodiments, an RX UE, after receiving said time stamp, calculates its own time stamp and transmits it to a TX UE. In such embodiments, the TX UE may estimate a round-trip time and calibrate synchronization timing) (see paragraphs [0135-0137]).
Regarding claim 14, Ganesan discloses a method for timing information interaction, performed by a second user equipment (UE) (i.e., a TX UE (second UE) that participates in a timing calibration exchange with an RX UE for SL PRS synchronization) (see paragraphs [0131 & 0135]), comprising: sending timing information to a first UE (e.g., RX UE) (i.e., The TX UE (second UE) “includes time stamp information either in SCI, a MAC CE, PDCP, RLC headers, and/or control PDUs” and transmits them to the RX UE (first UE). The time stamps constitute timing information sent from the second UE to the first UE) (see paragraph [0135]), wherein the timing information is configured to calibrate timing information of a sidelink (SL) positioning reference signal (PRS)(i.e., The calibration step is performed “in sidelink to synchronize UEs belonging to different synchronization sources to a common synchronization timing.” The TX UE’s time stamp enables the RTT estimate used to “calibrate synchronization timing” for SL PRS transmission and reception) (see paragraphs [0131 & 0135-0137]).
Regarding claim 15, Ganesan teaches all the limitations of claim 14. In addition, Ganesan teaches the method, further comprising: receiving the timing information sent by a base station (i.e., The gNB (base station) “may provide additional information in common radio resource control (‘RRC’) signaling (e.g., via system information broadcast) about calibration offset values with respect to each synchronization source.” This broadcast is received by all UEs in the cell) (see paragraphs [0131-0133]).
Regarding claim 17, Ganesan teaches all the limitations of claim 15. In addition, Ganesan teaches the method, wherein the timing information comprises at least one of: a timing offset of an SL link of at least one positioning assistance UE; a timing offset of a downlink (DL) radio frame of a serving cell of the first UE (i.e., The gNB (base station) provides “calibration offset values with respect to each synchronization source” where “reference timing and/or numerology for the offset may be calculated with respect to a coreset 0 and/or a physical broadcast channel (‘PBCH’).” These offsets relate to the DL radio frame of the serving cell. The TX UE (second UE) receives these offsets via RRC/SIB broadcast, which include the timing offset of the DL radio frame of the serving cell applicable to the RX UE (first UE). This enables the TX UE (second UE) to incorporate the first UE’s DL frame timing offset into its calibration process) (see paragraphs [0132-0133]); or a clock offset of the first UE.
Regarding claim 18, Ganesan teaches all the limitations of claim 14. In addition, Ganesan teaches the method, wherein sending the timing information to the first UE comprises: sending timing synchronization source information to the first UE (i.e., broadly reads on the teaching of Ganesan that a TX UE includes times stamp information either in SCI where it may be groupcast or unicast based on one-to-one and/or one-to-many calculations of SL positioning. In various embodiments, an RX UE, after receiving said time stamp, calculates its own time stamp and transmits it to a TX UE. In such embodiments, the TX UE may estimate a round-trip time and calibrate synchronization timing) (see paragraphs [0135-0137]).
Regarding claim 20, Ganesan discloses a method for timing information interaction, performed by a base station (i.e., Ganesan discloses a gNB (base station) that participates in the SL positioning and timing calibration framework. The gNB performs calibration-related functions, including providing calibration offset values to UEs. Ganesan confirms: “the terms eNB and/or gNB may be used for a base station”) (see paragraphs [0131-0133]), comprising: sending timing information (i.e., The gNB (base station) “may provide additional information in common radio resource control (‘RRC’) signaling (e.g., via system information broadcast) about calibration offset values with respect to each synchronization source.” This information is broadcast to UEs in the cell, including the RX UE (first UE). Additionally, the calibration step “may be triggered to be performed by … a gNB.”) (see paragraphs [0131 & 0135]), wherein the timing information is configured to calibrate timing information of a sidelink (SL) positioning reference signal (PRS) (i.e., The calibration offset values are provided “with respect to each synchronization source” and are calculated “with respect to a coreset 0 and/or a physical broadcast channel (‘PBCH’).” Their purpose is to enable UEs to synchronize to a common timing for SL PRS transmission and reception. Additionally, “LPP signaling may indicate a common synchronization source to be used for SL PRS transmission.”) (see paragraphs [0131 & 0133]).
Regarding claim 21, Ganesan teaches all the limitations of claim 20. In addition, Ganesan teaches the method, receiving the timing information sent by at least one positioning assistance UE (i.e., broadly reads on the teaching of Ganesan that a TX UE includes times stamp information either in SCI where it may be groupcast or unicast based on one-to-one and/or one-to-many calculations of SL positioning. In various embodiments, an RX UE, after receiving said time stamp, calculates its own time stamp and transmits it to a TX UE. In such embodiments, the TX UE may estimate a round-trip time and calibrate synchronization timing) (see paragraphs [0135-0137]).
Regarding claim 33, Ganesan discloses a first user equipment (UE), comprising a processor and a memory (i.e., Ganesan discloses a remote unit 102 (UE) including a processor 202 and a memory 204. The processor “may include any known controller capable of executing computer-readable instructions.” The memory “is a computer readable storage medium) (see paragraphs [0046-0048] and fig. 2), wherein the memory stores a computer program, and when the computer program is executed by the processor, cause the first UE to implement the method according to claim 1 (i.e., The memory “stores program code and related data, such as an operating system or other controller algorithms operating on the remote unit 102.” Embodiments “may take the form of a program product embodied in one or more computer readable storage devices storing machine readable code.” The RX UE (first UE) executes stored program code via its processor to perform the SL PRS timing calibration method of claim 1, including receiving timing information from the TX UE (second UE) per [0135] and calibrating SL PRS timing per paragraphs [0131]–[0137]).
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.
Claims 10, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganesan et al., U.S. Publication Number 2023/0199802 A1 (hereinafter Ganesan) as applied to claims 9, 14, 18, 20 and 21 above, and further in view of Thomas et al., U.S. Publication Number 2023/0296752 A1 (hereinafter Thomas).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Ganesan teaches all the limitations of claims 9 and 18. Ganesan fails to explicitly teach the method, wherein a timing synchronization source corresponding to the timing synchronization source information comprises at least one of: a global navigation satellite system (GNSS); a UE directly synchronized to a GNSS clock; the UE, a next generation node base (gNB) or an evolved node base (eNB) directly synchronized to the GNSS clock; a UE directly synchronized to a gNB clock or an eNB clock; a UE indirectly synchronized to the gNB clock or the eNB clock; or a UE with a lowest priority.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Thomas teaches wherein a timing synchronization source corresponding to the timing synchronization source information comprises at least one of: a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) (Table 8, Priority 1.1: “GNSS” explicitly listed as highest priority synchronization source. [0146]: “GNSS is prioritized as a synchronization source”) (see paragraph [0146]); a UE directly synchronized to a GNSS clock (Table 8, Priority 1.2: “Fixed and mobile reference nodes directly synchronized to GNSS.” A reference node is a UE (SL-UE, VRU) per paragraphs [0113]–[0114] & 0145]); the UE, a next generation node base (gNB) or an evolved node base (eNB) directly synchronized to the GNSS clock (Table 8, Priority 1.1/1.4: GNSS and Base Station listed; [0145]: nodes “configured to be synchronized with a common clock, e.g., preferably based on GNSS time.” Base Station synchronization to GNSS is inherent in 3GPP networks) (see paragraphs [0145-0146]); a UE directly synchronized to a gNB clock or an eNB clock (see Table 8, Priority 2.2: “Fixed and mobile reference nodes directly synchronized to Base Station”); a UE indirectly synchronized to the gNB clock or the eNB clock (see Table 8, Priority 2.3: “Fixed and mobile reference nodes indirectly synchronized to Base Station”); or a UE with a lowest priority (see Table 8 establishes a priority hierarchy; the lowest-priority entries (1.6/2.6) are nodes indirectly synchronized. A UE at the bottom of the priority hierarchy is implicitly a “lowest priority” 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 incorporate Thomas’s synchronization source types into Ganesan’s calibration framework because both references address SL PRS timing synchronization. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying Thomas’s well-defined synchronization source hierarchy to Ganesan’s calibration offset mechanism would yield the predictable benefit of enabling the receiving UE to identify the transmitting UE’s synchronization source and thereby select and apply the correct calibration offset, improving the accuracy and reliability of SL PRS timing calibration. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A) (combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Regarding claim 16, Ganesan teaches all the limitations of claim 14. Claim 16 requires the second UE (TX UE) to: (1) determine, from absolute timings of SL PRS sent by a base station or positioning assistance UE, a reference timing; (2) calculate a relative timing of a second SL PRS to the reference; and (3) send the relative timing to the first UE (RX UE). As set forth in the § 112(b) rejection, the Examiner interprets the claim as requiring selecting one absolute timing as a reference, computing a time difference between a second absolute timing and the reference, and sending the result. See MPEP § 2173.06.
Regarding the reference timing determination, Ganesan teaches that the TX UE (second UE) has access to absolute timing information from multiple SL PRS events: the gNB transmits DL PRS usable as “a common reference timing for SL PRS transmission and/or reception” (Ganesan [0132]); anchor UEs whose “position is known accurately” (Ganesan [0060]) transmit SL PRS in the various communication models of FIGS. 4–7 and 12; and the TX UE itself “includes time stamp information” for SL PRS transmission (Ganesan [0135]). However, Ganesan does not explicitly teach selecting one SL PRS timing as a designated reference. Thomas fills this gap by teaching that “at least one of these nodes acts as a reference node” (Thomas [0110]) and that “Timing relative to the serving fixed (reference) TRP” is a mandatory configuration parameter for SL-TDOA positioning (Thomas, Table 6). In FIG. 6, the fixed reference node 620’s absolute timing (T3) serves as the designated reference against which all other timings are measured (Thomas [0112], [0129]). The reference node is selected from among the SL PRS transmitting nodes, satisfying the “wherein” clause requiring the first SL PRS to be “any SL PRS” from the set.
Regarding the relative timing calculation, Ganesan teaches that “RTT calculation may be performed between SL UEs” (Ganesan [0134]) and that “the TX UE may estimate a round-trip time and calibrate synchronization timing” (Ganesan [0135]), but does not explicitly describe computing a relative timing as the difference between two SL PRS absolute timings with respect to a designated reference. Thomas explicitly teaches this computation through the RSTD formula: RSTD1=∣τ1−τ3∣+(T1−T3)+ε (Thomas [0129]), where (T1−T3) is the Real Time Difference (i.e., the relative timing of node 1’s absolute timing computed with respect to the reference node’s absolute timing). Thomas further teaches that additional non-reference RSTD measurements between other node pairs may be computed to improve accuracy (Thomas [0132]). Each non-reference SL PRS event is necessarily different from the reference, satisfying the “wherein” clause requiring the second SL PRS to be “any SL PRS other than” the first.
Regarding sending the relative timing to the first UE, Ganesan teaches that the TX UE (second UE) sends timing information including time stamps to the RX UE (first UE) via SCI, MAC CE, PDCP, RLC headers, and/or control PDUs (Ganesan [0135]). This existing UE-to-UE exchange mechanism provides the channel for sending the computed relative timing value. Thomas confirms that computed timing values are communicated between entities: “nodes transmitting SL PRS … are configured to report the transmit time to the LMF periodically” and “the RTD offset may be calculated by the target UE … based on a SL PRS transmit time-stamp” (Thomas [0147]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ganesan’s UE-to-UE timing calibration exchange to incorporate Thomas’s reference timing designation and RSTD computation methodology. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying Thomas’s RSTD methodology to Ganesan’s timing exchange would predictably enable the TX UE to provide the RX UE with a precise, reference-anchored relative timing value, improving SL PRS calibration accuracy. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 22, Ganesan teaches all the limitations of claim 20. Claim 22 recites the same three-step procedure as Claim 16 (i.e., determining a reference timing, calculating a relative timing, and sending the relative timing), but performed by the base station (gNB) rather than the second UE, with absolute timings obtained from “at least one positioning assistance UE.” The Examiner applies the same broadest reasonable interpretation as for Claim 16.
Regarding the reference timing determination, Ganesan teaches that the gNB participates in the SL positioning framework by transmitting SL resource pool configurations and SL RS to the LMF (Ganesan [0070], [0079], [0088], [0097], [0118]) and possesses timing information from which calibration offsets are derived (Ganesan [0133]). Anchor UEs (positioning assistance UEs) transmit SL PRS per FIGS. 4–7 and 12, and the gNB, through its NRPPa interface with the LMF, has access to timing data from these anchor UEs (Ganesan [0066]). However, Ganesan does not explicitly describe the gNB selecting one SL PRS timing as a designated reference. Thomas teaches that the network explicitly designates a reference node: “at least one of these nodes acts as a reference node” (Thomas [0110]). Thomas Table 6 confirms that “Timing relative to the serving fixed (reference) TRP” is a mandatory parameter provided by the LMF through the gNB. Thomas further teaches that the gNB actively receives timing and location information from SL nodes via RRC signaling and shares it with the LMF via NRPPa (Thomas [0117]–[0119]).
Regarding the relative timing calculation, Ganesan teaches that the gNB computes and provides “calibration offset values with respect to each synchronization source” via RRC/SIB, where “offset values may be provided with respect to a number of symbols, a microsecond, and/or a nanosecond” calculated “with respect to a coreset 0 and/or a physical broadcast channel (‘PBCH’)” (Ganesan [0133]). These offset values are inherently relative timing measurements, but Ganesan does not explicitly describe computing the difference between two SL PRS absolute timings. Thomas teaches this computation explicitly through the RSTD formula (Thomas [0129]) and confirms that the LMF (via the gNB) “uses 2D (x, y) coordinates of the anchor nodes transmitting SL PRS as well as the transmit time offsets in order to localize the target UE” (Thomas [0124]), where “transmit time offsets” are relative timing values computed with respect to the reference. Nodes “report the transmit time to the LMF periodically assisting the LMF to compensate the RTD offset” (Thomas [0147]).
Regarding sending the relative timing to the first UE, Ganesan teaches that the gNB sends calibration information to UEs via RRC/SIB broadcast (Ganesan [0133]) and transmits SL assistance data for SL PRS transmission (Ganesan [0044], [0055]). Thomas confirms that the network sends reference TRP timing configuration to target UEs (Thomas, Table 6; [0131], [0134]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ganesan’s gNB calibration offset framework to incorporate Thomas’s reference timing designation and RSTD computation methodology. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that incorporating Thomas’s methodology into Ganesan’s gNB calibration mechanism would predictably provide the RX UE (first UE) with precise, reference-anchored relative timing values derived from positioning assistance UE data, improving SL PRS calibration accuracy. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 23, Ganesan in view of Thomas teaches all the limitations of claim 22. Ganesan further teaches the gNB (base station) transmits SL assistance data including “SL PRS transmission occasions per resource pool” to UEs for SL PRS transmission (Ganesan [0067], [0142]).
However, Ganesan fails to explicitly teach that the gNB sends the “absolute timing for sending or receiving of the at least one SL PRS” to the second UE.
Thomas explicitly teaches that the network transmits SL PRS timing configuration including timing information for anchor nodes to specific UEs identified by their L2 IDs. Thomas states that “when the SL positioning configuration (or SL positioning request) is transmitted by the LMF, it may also include the Source L2 ID of the target UE and then the Destination L2 ID is transmitted for Anchor UEs to transmit the PRS” (Thomas [0134]). The Destination L2 ID enables targeted delivery of SL PRS timing configuration to the anchor UEs (positioning assistance UEs), which are the UEs that transmit SL PRS at the designated absolute timings. Thomas Table 6 further confirms that the SL-PRS configuration which includes timing parameters relative to the reference TRP as well as the SL-PRS resource set configuration at specific time instances (t0,…,tn) is sent from the LMF to UEs for both UE-assisted and UE-based positioning scenarios (Thomas, Table 6; [0131]). This confirms that the network communicates absolute timing information for SL PRS events to individual UEs, including anchor UEs that correspond to the second UE (TX UE) in the instant claim framework.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ganesan’s gNB-side framework with Thomas to explicitly send the absolute timing for sending or receiving of the at least one SL PRS to the second UE (TX UE). One of ordinary skill would have recognized that providing the TX UE (second UE) with absolute SL PRS timing information is a necessary prerequisite for the TX UE to participate meaningfully in the SL positioning framework and that doing so would yield the predictable benefit of enabling coordinated, properly timed SL PRS transmission and reception among all participating UEs. The modification involves nothing more than extending Ganesan’s existing SL assistance data distribution to include the absolute timing values already available within the framework, following the targeted delivery approach taught by Thomas.
Regarding claim 24, Ganesan teaches all the limitations of claim 21. Claim 24 depends from claim 21 (which depends from claim 20) and requires that the base station’s (gNB’s) sending of timing information to the first UE (RX UE) further comprises at least one of: obtaining a timing offset of an SL link of the at least one positioning assistance UE sent by the at least one positioning assistance UE; obtaining a timing offset of a DL radio frame of a serving cell of the first UE; or obtaining a clock offset of the first UE. The claim is written in the alternative and requires only one of the three recited alternatives to be taught. As set forth in the § 112(b) rejection above, the term “the first UE” in claim 24 lacks proper antecedent basis because Applicant’s amendment to independent claim 20 removed the introduction of “a first user equipment (UE)” from the claim chain. For purposes of prior art examination, the Examiner interprets “the first UE” as referring to a UE that receives timing information from the base station, consistent with the broadest reasonable reading of the claim chain and the surrounding claim context.
Regarding the second alternative, Ganesan explicitly teaches that the gNB (base station) obtains and provides timing offsets calculated with respect to DL radio frame components. Ganesan states that “a gNB may provide additional information in common radio resource control (‘RRC’) signaling (e.g., via system information broadcast) about calibration offset values with respect to each synchronization source” and that “offset values may be provided with respect to a number of symbols, a microsecond, and/or a nanosecond, and reference timing and/or numerology for the offset may be calculated with respect to a coreset 0 and/or a physical broadcast channel (‘PBCH’)” (Ganesan [0133]). CORESET#0 and PBCH are fundamental components of the DL radio frame transmitted by the gNB for its serving cell. Because the gNB is the entity that generates, configures, and transmits the DL radio frame, it inherently possesses and therefore “obtains” the timing offset of the DL radio frame of the serving cell. This timing offset is then provided to UEs in the cell, including the RX UE (first UE), via the SIB broadcast mechanism. This teaching directly satisfies the second alternative of claim 24.
Regarding the first alternative, Ganesan teaches that anchor UEs (positioning assistance UEs) participate in the SL positioning framework and that the gNB has access to information about anchor and non-anchor UEs through “an external interface that provides information to the LMF indicating one or more parameters” (Ganesan [0066]). Ganesan further teaches that the TX UE “includes time stamp information” in signaling messages sent to other UEs (Ganesan [0135]), implying that anchor UEs can similarly provide their SL link timing information to the network. However, Ganesan does not explicitly describe the gNB receiving a timing offset of an SL link from a positioning assistance UE. Thomas strengthens this teaching by explicitly disclosing that the serving gNB “can trigger the request for a location report … of at least two non-anchor SL nodes in the immediate vicinity of the target UE” using RRC signaling (Thomas [0117]), that “the serving base station … may estimate the location of two or more non-anchor SL nodes … based on gNB measurement RAT-dependent positioning techniques” (Thomas [0118]), and that “nodes transmitting SL PRS … are configured to report the transmit time to the LMF periodically assisting the LMF to compensate the RTD offset” (Thomas [0147]). These teachings confirm that the gNB receives timing information including SL link timing offsets from positioning assistance UEs, satisfying the first alternative.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify Ganesan’s gNB calibration framework with Thomas to obtain the timing offsets recited in the claim, since both Ganesan and Thomas are directed to SL PRS timing synchronization in 3GPP NR systems, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized that obtaining these timing offsets is a necessary prerequisite for the gNB to compute and distribute the calibration information that Ganesan’s framework already provides to UEs, yielding the predictable benefit of more accurate SL PRS timing calibration.
Regarding claim 25, Ganesan in view of Thomas teaches all the limitations of claim 24. As noted in the § 112(b) rejection above and in the rejection of claim 24, the term “the first UE” in claim 25 lacks proper antecedent basis. The Examiner applies the same broadest reasonable interpretation adopted for claim 24, namely, that “the first UE” refers to a UE that receives timing information from the base station.
Claim 25 depends from claim 24 and further requires the base station (gNB) to send at least one of the following timing offsets to the second UE (TX UE): the timing offset of the SL link of the at least one positioning assistance UE; the timing offset of the DL radio frame of the serving cell of the first UE; or the clock offset of the first UE. As with claim 24, the claim is written in the alternative and requires only one of the three recited alternatives.
Regarding the second alternative, Ganesan teaches that the gNB provides “calibration offset values with respect to each synchronization source” via “common radio resource control (‘RRC’) signaling (e.g., via system information broadcast)” (Ganesan [0133]). A system information block (SIB) broadcast is inherently received by all UEs within the gNB’s serving cell, which necessarily includes the TX UE (second UE). The calibration offset values are calculated “with respect to a coreset 0 and/or a physical broadcast channel (‘PBCH’)” (Ganesan [0133]) — both of which are timing components of the DL radio frame of the serving cell. Because SIB broadcast reaches all UEs in the cell without distinction, the gNB effectively sends the timing offset of the DL radio frame of the serving cell to the second UE as part of its normal calibration offset distribution. This teaching directly satisfies the second alternative of Claim 25.
Thomas further supports the delivery of timing configuration to specific UEs in the SL positioning framework. Thomas Table 6 confirms that SL-PRS timing configuration parameters including “Timing relative to the serving fixed (reference) TRP” are sent from the LMF (through the gNB) to UEs for both UE-assisted and UE-based positioning. Thomas [0134] teaches that the SL positioning configuration includes Source and Destination L2 IDs, enabling the network to direct timing information to specific UEs, including anchor UEs that correspond to the second UE (TX UE). Thomas [0147] additionally confirms that timing reports are exchanged periodically between nodes and the LMF to compensate for RTD offsets, establishing a bidirectional flow of timing information in which the network distributes timing offsets to participating UEs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify Ganesan’s gNB calibration framework with Thomas so that the gNB sends the timing offset of the DL radio frame to the second UE (TX UE). Ganesan already broadcasts calibration offset values via SIB to all UEs in the serving cell (Ganesan [0133]), which inherently includes the second UE, and Thomas confirms that the network delivers timing configuration to specific UEs for SL positioning purposes using L2 ID-based targeting (Thomas, Table 6; [0134]). One of ordinary skill would have recognized that providing the TX UE (second UE) with the DL radio frame timing offset enables the TX UE to properly calibrate its SL PRS timing with respect to the serving cell’s DL frame, which is the same reference from which Ganesan’s calibration offsets are derived (Ganesan [0133]). This yields the predictable benefit of ensuring that both the first UE (RX UE) and the second UE (TX UE) have access to a consistent timing offset referenced to the same DL radio frame, thereby improving the overall accuracy and coherence of the SL PRS timing calibration across all participating UEs. The modification involves no more than extending the reach of Ganesan’s existing SIB-based calibration offset distribution which already reaches all UEs in the cell to the specific use of providing the second UE with the DL radio frame timing offset, consistent with Thomas’s targeted delivery approach.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) should be directed to Anthony Addy whose telephone number is (571) 272-7795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 8:00-5:00.
SPE 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.
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.
/ANTHONY S ADDY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights