DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Following response to arguments is based on Applicant’s arguments filed on 23 July 2026.
Regarding Previous Rejection Under 35 USC § 112
Previous rejection of claims 13-14 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment to the rejected claims.
Regarding Previous Rejection Under 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments [Pages 6-7] with respect to rejection of claims 1 and 16-17 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, on pages 6-7, Applicant argues that Choi fails to teach “receiving, by the first device, first information from a first terminal device or a second terminal device; and determining, by the first device…”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s response and submits as follows.
The claim is not specifying whether the first device is different from other devices. In fact, claimed first device is basically performing some calculations based on received first information; thus, a person having ordinary skills in the art would recognize that any element in the system might perform similar calculations, or that the claimed first device could be an internal module/processor belonging to the first UE. That is, claimed first device is broadly interpreted as a calculator, because the claim is not providing further details of the relevancy of having a different device just to estimate values.
Furthermore, Choi illustrates different scenarios for the estimation of the position of any of the involved UEs based on propagation times between UEs. Hence, a person having ordinary skills in the art would recognize that a first UE may calculate its own position based on propagation times between this first UE and second UE, or calculate the position of second UE based on propagation times between the second UE and third UE, etc.
Therefore, based on the above, Fig. 2 in Choi is still applicable as, for example, first UE 115-a determines position of any of the UE in the network (including its own position) based on propagation times 220a-220b which comprise reference transmitted times T1, T3 and reference received times T2, T4 [Paragraphs 124, 126, 129, 188].
Regarding claims 16-17, these claims have been amended to incorporate similar limitations to those set forth in independent claim 1, and are rejected based on similar reasoning.
Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the Examiner maintains the rejections.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 5, 7, 13-14, 16-17 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Second Paragraph
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 1-15 and 17-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For claim 1:
At lines 5-6, it is unclear whether “a first terminal device and a second terminal device” is different from previous recitation of first terminal device and second terminal device.
For claim 17:
At line 8, it is unclear whether “a first terminal device and a second terminal device” is different from previous recitation of first terminal device and second terminal device.
For claims 2-15 and 18-20:
These claims are also rejected as they depend upon a rejected claim.
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)(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 1-4, 7-8, 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)-(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0007327).
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches a sidelink ([Paragraph 5]) positioning method (Fig. 2), applicable to a first device (Fig. 4 [Paragraph 164]), the method comprising:
receiving, by the first device, first information from a first terminal device or a second terminal device (the device receiving the transmission and reception times from the UEs for calculating the propagation time and position of the UEs [Paragraph 124, 126, 129, 164, 188]); and
determining, by the first device, a propagation time between a first terminal device and a second terminal device based on the first information to position the second terminal device (propagation time for communication between UE115a and UE115c is determined based on the time the PRS is transmitted/received between the UEs, such that, for example, position of the second UE 115c is estimated [Paragraphs 123, 157, 162, 188, 195, 244]), wherein the first information indicates at least one of the following: a first time when a reference signal is transmitted (time for PRS being transmitted by first UE115a [Paragraph 105]), or a second time when the reference signal is received (received times T2, T4. Additionally, the claim is not specifying whether the first device is different from other devices. In fact, claimed first device is basically performing some calculations based on received first information; thus, a person having ordinary skills in the art would recognize that any element in the system might perform similar calculations, or that the claimed first device could be an internal module/processor belonging to the first UE. That is, claimed first device is broadly interpreted as a calculator, because the claim is not providing further details of the relevancy of having a different device just to estimate values. Furthermore, Choi illustrates different scenarios for the estimation of the position of any of the involved UEs based on propagation times between UEs. Hence, a person having ordinary skills in the art would recognize that a first UE may calculate its own position based on propagation times between this first UE and second UE, or calculate the position of second UE based on propagation times between the second UE and third UE, etc. Therefore, based on the above, Fig. 2 in Choi is still applicable as, for example, first UE 115-a determines position of any of the UE in the network (including its own position) based on propagation times 220a-220b which comprise reference transmitted times T1, T3 and reference received times T2, T4 [Paragraphs 124, 126, 129, 188]).
Regarding claim 2, Choi further teaches method according to claim 1, wherein the reference signal is a positioning reference signal (PRS) (PRS 210 in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Choi further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first information indicates whether the first terminal device or the second terminal device is a synchronization source (either UE can be established and recognized as a sync source [Paragraphs 64, 81, 84]).
Regarding claim 4, Choi further teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein in a case where the first terminal device is a synchronization source of the second terminal device or the second terminal device is a synchronization source of the first terminal device, the first information is reported by a terminal device in the first terminal device and the second terminal device that receives a returned reference signal (since either of the UEs can be established as the sync source, the PRS 210 is being transmitted by the first UE and returned by the second UE [Paragraphs 64, 81, 84]).
Regarding claim 7, Choi further teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting first indication information to the first terminal device or the second terminal device, wherein the first indication information indicates that the first terminal device or the second terminal device does not report the time difference between the first time and the second time (report of the PRS is being communicated between the UEs and no report for the difference is being established [Paragraphs 82-83]).
Regarding claim 8, Choi further teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein transmitting the first indication information to the first terminal device or the second terminal device comprises:
transmitting the first indication information to the first terminal device or the second terminal device in a case where no synchronization time difference is present between the first terminal device and the second terminal device (thus, the PRS is being communicated without informing about the time difference [Paragraphs 82-83]).
Regarding claim 12, Choi further teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
receiving third information from one or more synchronization sources, wherein the third information indicates a terminal device in synchronization with the one or more synchronization sources (any of the UE 115 can be established and recognized as a sync source, thus there is a synchronization with the source UE [Paragraphs 64, 81, 84]).
Regarding claim 13, Choi further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first time TUE-TX when the reference signal is transmitted comprises one or more of: an instant when the reference signal is transmitted ([Paragraph 105]); a timing of a second subframe, wherein the second subframe is a transmission subframe closest to the second time ([Paragraph 67]); or a timing of a third subframe, wherein the third subframe is a subframe for transmitting the reference signal ([Paragraph 68]).
Regarding claim 14, Choi further teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the timing of the subframe comprises a start time of the subframe or an end time of the subframe ([Paragraphs 67-68]).
Regarding claim 15, Choi further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first device is a positioning server ([Paragraphs 170, 278]).
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claims 17-20, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 1-4.
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 of this title, 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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0007327) in view of Fan et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0026332).
Regarding claim 5, Choi teaches all the limitations recited in claim 4.
However, Choi does not explicitly mention: wherein the first information is mod(d,T), wherein T represents a subframe time length, and d represents the time difference between the first time and the second time, and mod represents a modulo operation.
Fan teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
wherein the first information is mod(d,T), wherein T represents a subframe time length, and d represents the time difference between the first time and the second time, and mod represents a modulo operation (expressions for Paragraphs 9, 24, 29, 79, 90, 93).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Choi) by determining modulo operation (as taught by Fan) for the purpose of improve transportation of the signals (Fan – Paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 6, Fan further teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein determining the propagation time between the first terminal device and the second terminal device based on the first information comprises: determining the propagation time as equal to mod(t,T)/2; wherein T represents the subframe time length, and t represents the time difference between the first time and the second time indicated in the first information (expressions for Paragraphs 9, 24, 29, 79, 90, 93).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0007327) in view of Xu et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0036797).
Regarding claim 9, Choi teaches all the limitations recited in claim 1.
However, Choi does not explicitly mention: receiving second information in a case where a synchronization time difference is present between the first terminal device and the second terminal device, wherein the second information indicats the synchronization time difference.
Xu teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
receiving second information in a case where a synchronization time difference is present between the first terminal device and the second terminal device, wherein the second information indicats the synchronization time difference ([Paragraphs 6-9, 22-30, 33-34, 40-43, 47]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Choi) by receiving second information (as taught by Xu) for the purpose of performing proper time synchronization (Xu – Paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 10, Xu further teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein the second information is received from a synchronization source of the first terminal device or the second terminal device ([Paragraphs 6-9, 22-30, 33-34, 40-43, 47]).
Regarding claim 11, Xu further teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein prior to receiving the second information, the method further comprises: transmitting a report request for the second information to a synchronization source of the first terminal device or the second terminal device ([Paragraphs 6-9, 22-30, 33-34, 40-43, 47]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5708. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 5712723044. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
August 7, 2026
/FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights