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 is in response to amendment filed on 2/13/26. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 12-16, 18-20, 25-28, and 30-39 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 13-16, 18-20, 26-28, and 30-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2024/0188030) in view of Da et al. (US 11,921,226), in view of Murray (US 2009/0189810), and further in view of Sun et al. (US 2015/0195810).
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a method for wireless communications performed at a first user equipment (UE) (first UE), comprising:
receiving positioning data (second assistance data) corresponding to a second UE (see “Additionally, the first UE 101 may, in some embodiments, calculate its absolute position based on the calculated relative position and the second assistance data (e.g., the location of the second UE 102) obtained from the second UE 102” [par 80]);
determining a relative position between the first UE and the second UE (see “For example, the first UE 101 may calculate its relative position to the second UE 102 based on the positioning measurements obtained from the second UE 102” [par 80]); and
determining a first location estimate (absolute position) of the first UE based on the positioning data corresponding to the second UE and the relative position between the first UE and the second UE (see “Additionally, the first UE 101 may, in some embodiments, calculate its absolute position based on the calculated relative position and the second assistance data (e.g., the location of the second UE 102) obtained from the second UE 102” [par 80]).
Wu does not explicitly teach determining a second location estimate of the first UE based on one or more sensor measurements performed by the first UE, wherein the one or more sensor measurements include at least one of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) measurements or wireless wide area network (WWAN) measurements; and sending the second location estimate of the first UE to the second UE. In an analogous prior art reference Da teaches a first UE (Vehicle A) determines a location estimate based on one or more sensor measurements performed by the first UE, wherein the one or more sensor measurements include at least one of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) measurements or wireless wide area network (WWAN) measurements (see “Step 1208: Vehicle A measures the PRS and C-PRS reference signals sent by the base station and vehicle B, and measures GNSS signals at the same time, and obtains various measurement values through various positioning sensors of the vehicle A” [col 24, lines 5-9] and “In step 1211, the vehicle A calculates the location of the vehicle (A, B) based on the measurement values obtained in steps 8 and 10” [col 24, lines 16-18] which suggests Vehicle A estimates its location based on PRS and C-PRS measurement values which are “WWAN measurements” since they are from a base station, and GNSS signals); and sending the second location estimate of the first UE to the second UE (see “Step 1213: Vehicle A and vehicle B can exchange the calculated positions of the vehicles (A, B) with each other” [col 24, lines 31-32]). 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 the invention of Wu to allow determining a second location estimate of the first UE based on one or more sensor measurements performed by the first UE; wherein the one or more sensor measurements include at least one of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) measurements or wireless wide area network (WWAN) measurements; and sending the second location estimate of the first UE to the second UE, as taught by Da, in order to provide the location of the first UE to the second UE so that the second UE may determine its absolute position and to monitor the reliability of positioning with each other.
The combination of Wu and Da does not explicitly teach determining a first accuracy estimate associated with the first location estimate and a second accuracy estimate associated with the second location estimate; determining a third location estimate of the first UE based on a weighted combination of the first location estimate and the second location estimate, wherein the weighted combination is based on the first accuracy estimate and the second accuracy estimate. In an analogous prior art reference, Murray teaches determining a first accuracy estimate (indicator of reliability of first location) associated with the first location estimate and a second accuracy estimate (indicator of reliability of second location) associated with the second location estimate (see “At step 606, first positioning logic 116 calculates a first location using first positioning system 104 and at step 608, second positioning logic 118 calculates a second location using second positioning system 106. The first location and the second location are each estimates of the current location of the user” [par 69] and “At decision step 610, control logic 112 determines whether first positioning system 104 is more reliable than second positioning system 106. This determination is based on at least one indicator of reliability obtained in step 602” [par 70]); determining a third location (final location) estimate of the first UE based on a weighted combination of the first location estimate and the second location estimate, wherein the weighted combination is based on the first accuracy estimate and the second accuracy estimate (see “If first positioning system 104 is deemed more reliable than second positioning system 106, then control logic 112 combines the first location and the second location to calculate a final location of the user, wherein the first location is weighted more heavily than the second location in the combination, as shown at step 612. However, if first positioning system 104 is not deemed more reliable than second positioning system 106, then control logic 112 combines the first location and the second location to calculate a final location of the user, wherein the second location is weighted more heavily than the first location in the combination, as shown at step 614” [par 70]). 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 the combination of Wu and Da to allow determining a first accuracy estimate associated with the first location estimate and a second accuracy estimate associated with the second location estimate; determining a third location estimate of the first UE based on a weighted combination of the first location estimate and the second location estimate, wherein the weighted combination is based on the first accuracy estimate and the second accuracy estimate, as taught by Murray, in order to send a more accurate location estimate of the first UE to the second UE.
The combination of Wu, Da, and Murray does not explicitly teach determining a delta between the first location estimate and the second location estimate and that the first and second accuracy estimates are determined in response to the delta exceeding a threshold value. In an analogous prior art reference, Sun teaches determining a delta (difference value) between a first location estimate (first estimated position) and a second location estimate (second estimated position); and determining a first accuracy estimate (accuracy of first estimated position) and a second accuracy estimate (accuracy of second estimated position) in response to the delta exceeding a threshold value (see “This may involve estimating a second position of the user device using the alternative positioning method, comparing the second estimated position with the first estimated position made using the alternative positioning method to determine a difference value, and comparing the difference value to a threshold value. If the difference value is less than the threshold value, it may be determined that the first estimated position was not determined in error and can therefore be validated. If the difference value is greater than the threshold value, it may be determined that the first estimated position was determined in error and should therefore be invalidated, in which case the first estimated position may not be used to estimate the position of the user device” [par 233] and accuracy criteria in paragraphs 234-235 which may be an accuracy value and predetermined distance range which may also read on the claimed “delta” and “difference value”). 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 the combination of Wu, Da, and Murray to allow determining a delta between the first location estimate and the second location estimate; and determining the first accuracy estimate and the second accuracy estimate (indicators of reliability in Murray) in response to the delta exceeding a threshold value, as taught by Sun, in order to determine which location estimate should be prioritized in the weighting performed by Murray.
Regarding claim 2, Wu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the positioning data includes an absolute position of the second UE (see “Additionally, the first UE 101 may, in some embodiments, calculate its absolute position based on the calculated relative position and the second assistance data (e.g., the location of the second UE 102) obtained from the second UE 102” [par 80]).
Regarding claim 3, Da teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the positioning data includes one or more sensor measurements performed by the second UE (see “Step 1210: Vehicle A and vehicle B exchange the acquired 15 measurement values with each other” [col 24, lines 14-15]).
Regarding claim 5, Wu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the relative position between the first UE and the second UE comprises:
determining, based on a radio frequency (RF) signal, a time of flight and an angle of arrival between the first UE and the second UE (see “At step 304, the second UE 102 performs positioning-related measurements, for example, time of arrival (ToA) measurement, angle of arrival (AoA) measurement and/or signal strength measurement, based on the received SL-PRS” [par 77]).
Regarding claim 6, Wu teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the RF signal includes at least one of an ultra- wideband (UWB) signal, a 5G mmW signal (FR2), and a PC5 signal (see “In one example, the first UE 101 may use Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocol (e.g., PC5-RRC) to announce or convey its configuration of SL-PRS” [par 30] and “At step 303, the first UE 101 transmits the SL-PRS via its FR2 module and the second UE 102 receives the SL-PRS via its FR2 module” [par 76]).
Regarding claim 7, Wu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first UE corresponds to a pedestrian UE and the second UE corresponds to a vehicle UE (see “FIG. 4 shows an example where the first UE 101 is a vehicle and the second UE 102 is a mobile phone held by a pedestrian” [par 78]).
Regarding claim 13, Wu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the second UE corresponds to a public transportation vehicle (see “FIG. 4 shows an example where the first UE 101 is a vehicle and the second UE 102 is a mobile phone held by a pedestrian” [par 78]).
Claims 14, 27, and 30 recite subject matter similar to claim 1 and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claims 15, 31, and 35 recite subject matter similar to claim 2 and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claims 16, 32, and 36 recite subject matter similar to claim 3 and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claims 18 and 38 recite subject matter similar to claim 5 and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claims 19, 34, and 39 recite subject matter similar to claim 6 and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claims 20, 33, and 37 recite subject matter similar to claim 7 and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim 26 recites subject matter similar to claim 13 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim 28 recites subject matter similar to claims 5 and 6 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim(s) 12 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2024/0188030) in view of Da et al. (US 11,921,226), in view of Murray (US 2009/0189810), and in view of Sun et al. (US 2015/0195810) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0057530).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Wu, Da, Murray, and Sun does not explicitly teach obtaining real-time kinematic (RTK) data associated with the positioning data corresponding to the second UE; and sending the RTK data to the second UE. In an analogous prior art reference, Wang teaches obtaining RTK data associated with positioning data of a UE (see “At block 420 a RTK correction term is determined that corresponds to the starting time (t0). The rover station 310 can derive an RTK correction term for use in maintaining high-accuracy positioning based on the measurement of block 410 at the starting time t0). 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 the combination of Wu, Da, Murray, and Sun to allow obtaining real-time kinematic (RTK) data associated with the positioning data corresponding to the second UE; and sending the RTK data to the second UE, as taught by Wang, in order to provide a high-accuracy solution by providing RTK data.
Claim 25 recites subject matter similar to claim 12 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) -3, 5-7, 12-16, 18-20, 25-28, and 30-39 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.
Conclusion
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 Nam T Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-5970. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at 571-270-0375. 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.
/NAM T HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights