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
Applicant's arguments filed 3-13-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument that the prior art doesn’t disclose time synchronization status between the UE and the network node, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim states the signal is either synchronized or not. This covers 100% of the possible synchronization statuses of the signal. Akkarakaran discusses timing and if a signal is sent, it must either be synchronized or unsynchronized and therefore meet the limitation of the claim. As best examiner understands, there is no third option.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 16-22 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkarakaran, et. al,. U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0053703, filed August 8, 2019 in view of Mo, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0238890, published September 23, 2010.
As per claims 1, 20, 21 and 25, Akkarakaran discloses a method implemented in a mobile radio network node of a wireless communication network, the method comprising:
performing, together with two or more additional nodes, at least one of which is another mobile radio network node, one or more procedures that: estimate a position of the mobile radio network node and positions of the two or more additional nodes (Akkarakaran, ¶63);
and synchronize timing of the mobile radio network node relative to the two or more additional nodes (Akkarakaran, ¶65);
performing a measurement on a signal from a transmitting node , the measurement being a Time of Arrival(TOA) of the signal at the mobile radio network node (Akkarakaran, ¶64);
and performing one or more actions that use the measurement (Akkarakaran, ¶69 where the measurement is sent to the server).
wherein the one or more procedures to estimate the position and synchronize the timing comprise using the PTP measurements to estimate a time offset between the mobile radio network node and the one of the two or more additional nodes, and determine a distance between the mobile radio network node and the one of the two or more additional nodes (Akkarakaran, ¶62 using RSTD);
wherein the signal from the transmitting node is time synchronized with the mobile radio network node, o or wherein the signal from the transmitting node is not time synchronized with the mobile radio network node (Akkarakaran, ¶62 where synchronized or not are the only two possible states of the signal).
Akkarakaran fails to explicitly disclose synchronizing time by detecting clock skew and fails to disclose that nodes are mobile.
Mo teaches mobile nodes (¶22) and using precision time to estimate clock skew (¶82).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have estimate clock skew and provide mobile base stations in order to gain the benefit of providing location data in remote locations and better providing for time synchronization to improve measurements.
As per claim 2, Akkarakaran as modified by Mo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the position of the mobile radio network node and the positions of the two or more additional nodes comprise relative positions, or wherein the position of the mobile radio network node and the positions of the two or more additional nodes comprise absolute positions (Akkarakaran, ¶66).
As per claim 4, Akkarakaran as modified by Mo further discloses the method of claim1, wherein performing the one or more actions comprises providing the measurement to at least one other node for the at least one other node to calculate a position of the transmitting node (Akkarakaran, ¶63 where the node assists another node in positioning).
As per claim 5, Akkarakaran as modified by Mo further discloses the method of claim1, wherein performing the one or more actions comprises providing the measurement to a location server for the location server to calculate a position of the transmitting node (Akkarakaran, ¶69).
As per claim 6, Akkarakaran as modified by Mo further discloses the method of claim1, wherein performing the one or more actions comprises: receiving additional measurements from the two or more additional nodes; calculating a Time Difference of Arrival (TDOA) measurement based on the measurement and the additional measurements; and calculating a position of the transmitting node (Akkarakaran, ¶62).
As per claims 16-19, Akkarakaran as modified by Mo further discloses the method of claim1, further comprising positioning the mobile radio network node relative to two of the two or more additional nodes such that an equilateral triangle is approximately formed and nodes move as well as supporting UWB (Akkarakaran, Fig. 6 and Fig. 1 where it is understood that phones and laptops move and Mo, ¶4)).
As per claim 22, Akkarakaran as modified by Mo further discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the responsive position signal includes a calculated position of the UE, or wherein the responsive position signal includes a measurement of the position signal, the method further comprising calculating, at the mobile radio network node, the position of the UE, or wherein the responsive position signal includes a measurement of the position signal, the method further comprising sending the responsive position signal to a location server to calculate the position of the UE (Akkarakaran, ¶63-66).
Claim(s) 11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkarakaran and Mo as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Feldman, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0195600, published July 7, 2016.
As per claims 11 and 13-15, Akkarakaran as modified by Mo discloses the method of claim 1 but fails to disclose some of the nodes being drones.
Feldman teaches drones as nodes (¶8-9).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use drones, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Akkarakaran in determining position.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
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 MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights