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 Amendment
This office action has been changed in response to the amendment filed on 7/14/2026.
Claims 1, 4, 9, 12, 16, 19 and 20 have been amended. Claim 11 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Claims 1, 16 and 20 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. It is not clear to the Examiner how “the first time difference is determine[d] based on a synchronization source and a subframe boundary of the first terminal device, a subframe boundary of the second terminal device, a reception time of the first signal, and a transmission time of a second signal” when the “synchronization source” is described as a base station. Applicant’s specification described the “synchronization source” as the location where a first time difference is determined, but it is not clear how this now relates/correlates to the four other required time instances to consider. Is this now a common time which everything is compared to?
Claims 2-10, 12-15 and 17-19 are rejected for being dependent upon the rejected independent claims and failing to cure their deficiencies.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 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.
Regarding claims 1, 16 and 20 state “wherein the first time difference is determine[d] based on a synchronization source and a subframe boundary of the first terminal device, a subframe boundary of the second terminal device, a reception time of the first signal, and a transmission time of a second signal”. Previously, as found in now cancelled claim 11 and newly amended claim 12, “synchronization source” was the device determining the first time difference. It is unclear to the Examiner how the first time difference is now being calculated based on a synchronization source and a subframe boundary of the first terminal device, a subframe boundary of the second terminal device, a reception time of the first signal, and a transmission time of a second signal because the “synchronization source” is not referred to again in claims 2-5, which further define how the “first time difference” is calculated. Are these time differences being added together at the synchronization source or is each difference being calculated from the synchronization source (as the common/reference clock)?
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15 and 17-19 are rejected for being dependent upon the rejected independent claims and failing to cure their deficiencies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-12,689,475 to Keating et al. which discloses a method and system for accurate sidelink positioning reference timing by taking into account the transmission slot for DL PRS, SL PRS and the time difference between the reception of the DL PRS and the transmission of the SL PRS. (see discussion surrounding Figs. 2, 4 and 5)
WO-2024/123677A1 to Hamidi-Sepehr et al. which discloses UL-PRS transmissions based upon 5G NR SRS.
US-2025/0039835 to Wang et al. which discloses a sidelink positioning method which utilizes transmitting at least two SL positioning reference signals within a first time period for more accurate location determining.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MATTHEW C SAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8099. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 EST.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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.
/Matthew C Sams/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights