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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2026-09-10 and 2026-09-24 have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 11, 17, and 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of copending reference Application No. 19/073,035 (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0203568 to Zhang et al.). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 11, 17, and 19-20 of the instant application is/are anticipated by claims 1-3 of the reference application, as demonstrated below.
Instant Application No. 19/028,936
Reference Application No. 19/073,035
Claim 1 (and similarly applied to claims 11, 17, and 19-20):
A method for positioning, comprising:
From claim 1:
A positioning method, wherein the method comprises: …
obtaining, by a first terminal, a sidelink location request, wherein the sidelink location request is used to request a location of a target terminal, and
From claim 1:
…determining, by a location server user equipment (UE), to perform sidelink positioning for a target UE…
From claim 3:
…wherein the determining, by a location server UE, to perform sidelink positioning for a target UE comprises: receiving, by the location server UE, a location request, wherein the location request is used to request positioning of the target UE…
the first terminal is a terminal providing a sidelink location server function; and
From claim 1:
…a location server user equipment (UE)…
executing, by the first terminal, a sidelink location operation based on the sidelink location request, and
From claim 3:
…determining, by the location server UE in response to the location request, to performing sidelink positioning for the UE.
obtaining a positioning result of the target terminal.
From claim 1:
…performing, by the location server UE, interaction with the target UE and/or the at least one anchor UE to position the target UE.
As can be seen above, claims 1, 11, 17, and 19-20 of the instant application the same or broader in scope than claims 1-3 of the reference application. Therefore, claims 1, 11, 17, and 19-20 of the instant application is/are anticipated by claims 1-3 of the reference application. Thus, claims 1, 11, 17, and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of Application No. 19/073,035.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-3, 7-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0254810 to Tenny.
As to claim 1 (and similarly applied to claims 17 and 20), Tenny discloses a method for positioning, comprising: obtaining, by a first terminal, a sidelink location request, wherein the sidelink location request is used to request a location of a target terminal (Tenny, Fig. 8 and ¶0043, "The flow of FIG. 8 assumes that the positioning operation is triggered by the server UE (UE2 in FIG. 8). The triggering may be in response to a request from an external entity, a request from the UE to be positioned (UE1 in FIG. 8), an internal request from an application layer operating on UE2, a request from a client in a cellular network, or various other events. In step 1 of FIG. 8, UE2 triggers the positioning operation."), and the first terminal is a terminal providing a sidelink location server function (Tenny, Fig. 8, UE2 (Server) operates as a sidelink location server UE; ¶0043); and executing, by the first terminal, a sidelink location operation based on the sidelink location request (Tenny, Fig. 8 and ¶¶0043-0045), and obtaining a positioning result of the target terminal (Tenny, Fig. 8, step 8; ¶¶0043-0045).
As to claim 2 (and similarly applied to claim 18), Tenny discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining, by a first terminal, a sidelink location request comprises one of the following: receiving, by the first terminal, a second sidelink location request from a second terminal through a sidelink unicast connection, wherein the second terminal and the target terminal are a same terminal (Tenny, Fig. 8 and ¶0043, "The flow of FIG. 8 assumes that the positioning operation is triggered by the server UE (UE2 in FIG. 8). The triggering may be in response to … a request from the UE to be positioned (UE1 in FIG. 8) ... In step 1 of FIG. 8, UE2 triggers the positioning operation"; please also see ¶0022, "The sidelink communications among the UEs may comprise one or more services, and may take place via unicast…"; or generating, by the first terminal, a third sidelink location request (Tenny, Fig. 8 and ¶0043, "The flow of FIG. 8 assumes that the positioning operation is triggered by the server UE (UE2 in FIG. 8). The triggering may be in response to … an internal request from an application layer operating on UE2 … In step 1 of FIG. 8, UE2 triggers the positioning operation.").
As to claim 3, Tenny discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the second sidelink location request is: a Sidelink positioning protocol message (Tenny, Fig. 8 and ¶¶0043-0045; please also see Fig. 1 and ¶¶0026-0027. The sidelink communications between the UEs (e.g., the Server UE, Target UE, and Peer UEs) take place over LPP, PC5-RRC, PC5-S, PC5-MAC, i.e., protocols for sidelink communication; Therefore, the request is a sidelink positioning protocol message).
As to claim 7, Tenny discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the sidelink location operation comprises at least one of the following: receiving a sidelink location measurement result transmitted by the target terminal; receiving a sidelink location result transmitted by the target terminal; or receiving a sidelink location measurement result transmitted by the anchor terminal (Tenny, Fig. 8, steps 7A-B; ¶0045).
As to claim 8, Tenny discloses the method according to claim 7, wherein the sidelink location operation further comprises at least one of the following: obtaining a sidelink location capability of the target terminal; obtaining a sidelink location capability of the anchor terminal; transmitting a sidelink location configuration to the target terminal (Tenny, Fig. 8, step 2; ¶0043); or transmitting the sidelink location configuration to the anchor terminal (Tenny, Fig. 8, step 4A-B; ¶0045).
As to claim 9, Tenny discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein after the executing, by the first terminal, a sidelink location operation based on the sidelink location request, and the obtaining a positioning result of the target terminal, the method further comprises: transmitting, by the first terminal, a second sidelink location response, wherein the second sidelink location response is used to indicate the positioning result of the target terminal (Tenny, Fig. 8 and ¶0045, "In step 8, UE2 computes a location estimate based on the collected measurements. The location estimate may then be delivered to the entity that originally requested it (not shown in the figure)").
As to claim 10, Tenny discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first terminal is the target terminal; or, the first terminal and the target terminal are different terminals, and the obtaining, by a first terminal, a sidelink location request comprises: receiving, by the first terminal, the sidelink location request transmitted by the target terminal (Tenny, Fig. 8 and ¶0043, "The flow of FIG. 8 assumes that the positioning operation is triggered by the server UE (UE2 in FIG. 8). The triggering may be in response to … a request from the UE to be positioned (UE1 in FIG. 8) ... In step 1 of FIG. 8, UE2 triggers the positioning operation.").
As to claim 11 (and similarly applied to claim 19), Tenny discloses a method for positioning, comprising: transmitting, by a second terminal, a sidelink location request to a first terminal, wherein the sidelink location request is used to request location of a target terminal (Tenny, Fig. 8 and ¶0043, "The flow of FIG. 8 assumes that the positioning operation is triggered by the server UE (UE2 in FIG. 8). The triggering may be in response to … a request from the UE to be positioned (UE1 in FIG. 8) ... In step 1 of FIG. 8, UE2 triggers the positioning operation"), and the first terminal is a terminal providing a sidelink location server function (Tenny, Fig. 8, UE2 (Server) operates as a sidelink location server UE; ¶0043); and the second terminal and the target terminal are a same terminal (Tenny, Fig. 8 and ¶0043, "The flow of FIG. 8 assumes that the positioning operation is triggered by the server UE (UE2 in FIG. 8). The triggering may be in response to … a request from the UE to be positioned (UE1 in FIG. 8) ... In step 1 of FIG. 8, UE2 triggers the positioning operation").
As to claim 12, Tenny discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein the sidelink location request is: a Sidelink positioning protocol message (Tenny, Fig. 8 and ¶¶0043-0045; please also see Fig. 1 and ¶¶0026-0027. The sidelink communications between the UEs (e.g., the Server UE, Target UE, and Peer UEs) take place over LPP, PC5-RRC, PC5-S, PC5-MAC, i.e., protocols for sidelink communication; Therefore, the request is a sidelink positioning protocol message).
As to claim 15, Tenny discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein in a case that the second terminal and the target terminal are the same terminal, and the target terminal provides no location server function, the method further comprises: determining, by the second terminal, the first terminal (Tenny, Fig. 8 and ¶0043; the target UE is separate from the Server UE, and the Server UE is the one that provides the location server function (please also see ¶0025, "the target UE might only support server-based positioning and not contain a location estimation module"). Additionally, examiner notes that the Target UE (UE1) requests to be positioned by the Server UE (UE2); therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Target UE determines the Server UE.).
As to claim 16, Tenny discloses the method according to claim 15, wherein before the transmitting, by the second terminal, a sidelink location request to a first terminal, the method further comprises: establishing, by the second terminal, a sidelink unicast connection to the first terminal (Tenny, Fig. 8 and ¶0043, "The flow of FIG. 8 assumes that the positioning operation is triggered by the server UE (UE2 in FIG. 8). The triggering may be in response to … a request from the UE to be positioned (UE1 in FIG. 8)"; ¶0022, "The sidelink communications among the UEs may comprise one or more services, and may take place via unicast…").
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 the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenny in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0410102 to Manolakos et al. (“Manolakos”).
As to claim 4, Tenny discloses the method according to claim 3.
Tenny does not disclose: wherein the sidelink location request comprises at least one of the following: location quality of service (QoS), or identification information of the target terminal.
However, Manolakos discloses: wherein the sidelink location request comprises at least one of the following: location quality of service (QoS) (Manolakos, Fig. 7 and ¶0121, "At 710, process 700 may include receiving a location request message from a network entity. The network entity can be a server, e.g., LMF 220 as shown in FIG. 2, wherein the location request message identifies a plurality of QoS parameters for the positioning session … The network entity may also comprise another user equipment, as previously described with regard to FIG. 6. In some implementations, the location request message identifies a plurality of QoS parameters for the positioning session"; please also see ¶¶0129-0130, Fig. 6, and ¶¶0113-0119), or identification information of the target terminal.
Tenny and Manolakos are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: wireless communication systems; positioning of mobile electronic device(s) in a wireless network; and/or positioning methods utilizing sidelinks by a server UE in NR mobile communication networks. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tenny to incorporate the teachings of Manolakos to include: wherein the sidelink location request comprises at least one of the following: location quality of service (QoS), or identification information of the target terminal. Doing so would allow for dynamic adjustment of QoS parameters during positioning sessions which would "allow a user to adjust one or more QoS parameters without the inherent latency of starting a new LPP positioning session and re-configuring everything" (Manolakos, ¶0077). Additionally, it would allow for variable accuracy of positioning requirements depending on the accuracy required for particular situations/use-case(s); e.g., parking lots, highway driving, and emergency services may all require different levels of location estimation accuracy (Manolakos, ¶0077, ¶0082, ¶0122). Finally, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Manolakos and Tenny because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 5, Tenny in view of Manolakos discloses the method according to claim 4, further comprising: determining, by the first terminal based on the location QoS, at least one of the following: a sidelink location method, location configuration information (Manolakos, Figs. 6-7 and ¶¶0125-0126. The UE determines location configuration and location configuration information based on the received QoS parameters), or an anchor terminal participating in location, wherein the anchor terminal is a terminal having a known location and participating in transmitting a sidelink positioning reference signal, or, the anchor terminal is a terminal having a known location and participating in measuring a sidelink positioning reference signal.
As to claim 6, Tenny in view of Manolakos discloses the method according to claim 4, wherein the sidelink location request further comprises at least one of the following: a location type, or information about a candidate anchor terminal, wherein the anchor terminal is a terminal having a known location and participating in transmitting a sidelink positioning reference signal, or, the anchor terminal is a terminal having a known location and participating in measuring a sidelink positioning reference signal; and the location type comprises absolute location, relative location, or range location (Manolakos, Fig. 7 and ¶0121; ¶0125: the QoS parameters may specify a vertical accuracy;¶¶0129-0130: the QoS parameters may specify "horizontal accuracy parameter that indicates a maximum horizontal error in a location estimate … a vertical coordinate request that indicates whether a vertical coordinate is required as part of the location response message, a vertical accuracy parameter that indicates a maximum vertical error in a location estimate"; please also see Fig. 6 and ¶¶0113-0119. Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that QoS parameters specifying vertical/horizontal accuracy, maximum error in vertical/horizontal location estimate(s), and/or whether a vertical coordinate is required as part of the location response would be considered a "location type comprising absolute location, relative location, or range location").
As to claim 13, Tenny discloses the method according to claim 12.
Tenny does not disclose: wherein the sidelink location request comprises at least one of the following: location quality of service (QoS), or identification information of the target terminal.
However, Manolakos discloses: wherein the sidelink location request comprises at least one of the following: location quality of service (QoS) (Manolakos , Fig. 7 and ¶0121, "At 710, process 700 may include receiving a location request message from a network entity. The network entity can be a server, e.g., LMF 220 as shown in FIG. 2, wherein the location request message identifies a plurality of QoS parameters for the positioning session … The network entity may also comprise another user equipment, as previously described with regard to FIG. 6. In some implementations, the location request message identifies a plurality of QoS parameters for the positioning session"; please also see ¶¶0129-0130, Fig. 6, and ¶¶0113-0119), or identification information of the target terminal.
Tenny and Manolakos are considered to be similar to the claimed invention because they are in one or more of the same fields of: wireless communication systems; positioning of mobile electronic device(s) in a wireless network; and/or positioning methods utilizing sidelinks by a server UE in NR mobile communication networks. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tenny to incorporate the teachings of Manolakos to include: wherein the sidelink location request comprises at least one of the following: location quality of service (QoS), or identification information of the target terminal. Doing so would allow for dynamic adjustment of QoS parameters during positioning sessions which would "allow a user to adjust one or more QoS parameters without the inherent latency of starting a new LPP positioning session and re-configuring everything" (Manolakos, ¶0077). Additionally, it would allow for variable accuracy of positioning requirements depending on the accuracy required for particular situations/use-case(s); e.g., parking lots, highway driving, and emergency services may all require different levels of location estimation accuracy (Manolakos, ¶0077, ¶0082, ¶0122). Finally, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of Manolakos and Tenny because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 14, Tenny in view of Manolakos discloses the method according to claim 13, wherein the sidelink location request further comprises at least one of the following: a location type, or information about a candidate anchor terminal, wherein the anchor terminal is a terminal having a known location and participating in transmitting a sidelink positioning reference signal, or, the anchor terminal is a terminal having a known location and participating in measuring a sidelink positioning reference signal; and the location type comprises absolute location, relative location, or range location (Manolakos, Fig. 7 and ¶0121; ¶0125: the QoS parameters may specify a vertical accuracy;¶¶0129-0130: the QoS parameters may specify "horizontal accuracy parameter that indicates a maximum horizontal error in a location estimate … a vertical coordinate request that indicates whether a vertical coordinate is required as part of the location response message, a vertical accuracy parameter that indicates a maximum vertical error in a location estimate"; please also see Fig. 6 and ¶¶0113-0119. Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that QoS parameters specifying vertical/horizontal accuracy, maximum error in vertical/horizontal location estimate(s), and/or whether a vertical coordinate is required as part of the location response would be considered a "location type comprising absolute location, relative location, or range location").
References Cited
Manolakos et al. (2021). Dynamic update of quality of service (qos) parameters during an ongoing new radio (nr) positioning session (US 2021/0410102 A1). Filed 2021-06-10.
Tenny, Nathan Edward (2023). Positioning methods facilitated by a server ue (US 2023/0254810 A1). Filed 2023-04-17.
Zhang, Hongping et al. (2025). Positioning method and apparatus, terminal, and network-side device (US 2025/0203568 A1). Filed 2025-03-07.
Other Pertinent References
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Abbas, Taimoor et al. (2026). Sidelink positioning operations based on wtru acting as a positioning server (US 20260313593 A1). Filed 2024-05-10.
Bao, Jingchao et al. (2021). User equipment positioning signal measurement and/or transmission (US 20210377906 A1). Filed 2021-05-21.
Barbu, Oana-Elena et al. (2025). Sidelink positioning in cellular system (US 20250063534 A1). Filed 2022-11-11.
Bao, Jingchao et al. (2023). Sidelink assisted positioning (US 11576143 B2). Filed 2021-01-06.
Bao, Jingchao et al. (2023). Apparatus and methods for target user equipment recommendation for sidelink-assisted positioning (US 11595931 B2). Filed 2021-07-02.
Fu, Jing et al. (2024). Positioning methods and user equipment (US 20240049160 A1). Filed 2022-01-19.
Fischer, Sven et al. (2026). Sidelink positioning protocol (slpp) procedures (US 12726934 B2). Filed 2023-08-07.
Gangakhedkar, Sandip et al. (2019). Communication nodes and methods for implementing a positioning-related signalling exchange (US 20190239181 A1). Filed 2019-04-10.
He, Haigang et al. (2026). Anchor terminal determination method, information sending method, communication node, and storage medium (US 12581454 B2). Filed 2022-01-14.
Li, Jianxiang (2025). Positioning method and apparatus, and terminal (US 20250016731 A1). Filed 2022-11-14.
Manolakos, Alexandros et al. (2024). Positioning peer selection in cooperative sidelink positioning (US 20240236653 A1). Filed 2022-01-26.
Manolakos et al. (2023). Dynamic update of quality of service (qos) parameters during an ongoing new radio (nr) positioning session (US 11800486 B2). Filed 2021-06-10.
Manolakos, Alexandros et al. (2026). Methods and apparatuses for sidelink-assisted cooperative positioning (US 12726930 B2). Filed 2021-02-03.
Ren, Bin (2025). Signal communication method and device (US 12231360 B2). Filed 2020-07-07.
Saur, Stephan et al. (2019). Using sidelink information in radio-based positioning (US 20190230618 A1). Filed 2018-01-23.
Sebire, Guillaume et al. (2025). Method and apparatus for sidelink positioning in mobile communications (US 20250344041 A1). Filed 2023-06-06.
Shen, Yang (2025). Method for network assisted ranging and/or sidelink positioning, terminal and software (US 20250310923 A1). Filed 2022-05-06.
Sirotkin, Alexander et al. (2023). Sidelink positioning architecture for wireless communications (US 20230125160 A1). Filed 2022-10-20.
Tenny, Nathan Edward (2022). Positioning methods facilitated by a server ue (US 20220015059 A1). Filed 2021-06-11.
Vassilovski, Dan et al. (2022). Sidelink-based positioning using sidelink signaling (US 11506746 B1). Filed 2021-05-25.
Vassilovski, Dan et al. (2023). Network configuration for sidelink-based positioning session initiation (US 11683782 B2). Filed 2021-06-03.
Vassilovski, Dan et al. (2025). User equipment anchor capability indication for sidelink-based positioning (US 12207227 B2). Filed 2023-11-17.
Vejlgaard, Benny et al. (2026). User equipment positioning (US 12535554 B2). Filed 2020-10-09.
Yerramalli, Srinivas et al. (2025). Response time based management for sl positioning resources (US 20250151009 A1). Filed 2023-03-17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL H LEONARD whose telephone number is (571)272-5720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm (PT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please 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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached at (571)272-7855. 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.
/SAMUEL H. LEONARD/
Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
