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 .
Election/Restriction
Claims 7-11 and 18-19, and 25 (Group II) previously withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/19/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claims have priority date of 10/07/2021.
Response to Amendment
Office action in response to applicant's submission filed on 7/23/2026. Claims 7-11, 18-19, and 24 are withdrawn. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 12-13, 15 and 17 are amended herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant submits that claim 10 should not be withdrawn (See remarks pg. 9-10 filed 07/23/2026). Examiner notes that applicant failed to timely object to claim 10 withdrawal in its last responses on 09/5/2025 or 02/09/2026. Thus, applicant has forfeited any argument against claim 10 withdrawal, even if merited. Nonetheless, examiner notes that claim 10 shall be rejoined if prosecution reaches the stage of allowance.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant provides a numbered version of claim 1 with features marked a through g for discussion purposes.
Applicant submits that Henry in combination with Da fails to disclose features a – d of claim 1, with labels a, b, c, d, e appearing remarks page 11.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding applicant’s argument on (a), taking applicant’s characterizations at face value, claim language does not place a limit on how a base station value is determined or exclude measured values. Certainly a measured value may also be a planned value, and regardless the claim limitation (a) merely recites storing such a value in memory and Henri teaches storage of location in memory also. See rejection below.
Regarding applicant’s argument on (b) and (d), arguing that Henri’s ¶59 RD1 and RD2 messages are two separate messages thus do nor represent a single ranging message (remarks page 13 and 14), examiner notes that combining two messages to one is within obviousness for a personal of ordinary skill. Specifically, as the corollary to the holding that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Nenvin v. Erlichmena, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding (c), (remarks page 14), examiner notes that Henri’s ranging data messages are also wireless, See Henri ¶31 “the stations 106 may be configured to communicate with one or more of the access points 104 via any known wireless communication protocols, such as, for example, Bluetooth™, general packet radio service (GPRS), cellular digital packet data (CDPD), mobile solutions platform (MSP), multimedia messaging (MMS), wireless application protocol (WAP), code division multiple access (CDMA), short message service (SMS), wireless markup language (WML), handheld device markup language (HDML), binary runtime environment for wireless (BREW), radio access network (RAN), packet switched core networks (PS-CN), any protocols associated with IEEE 802.11, and/or Ultra-Wide band (UWB) (e.g., any form associated with IEEE 802.15.4, 802.15.4a, and/or 802.15.4z). Also included are various generation wireless technologies.”
Regarding applicant argument about multiple time stamps disclosure by Henri on page 14, and Da on pages 15-16, examiner notes in response that it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involved only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Examiner further notes that In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that Da is nonanalogous art, ( i.e. Da is directed to synchronizing and Henry to localizing, or that Da discloses aX2-AP interface) it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, applicant’s not persuasive because the base station/device in DA are also wireless as shown in Fig.1 with wireless links 130, 135, 155, 160. Further Da also investigates determining location of the user equipment (Da ¶4 For example, the Observed Time Difference Of Arrival (OTDOA) technique uses the difference in arrival times of position reference signals (PRSs) transmitted by multiple base stations to a user equipment to estimate the location of the user equipment by multilateration). It is commonly known that “user equipment” may also serve as an access point i.e. hot spot.
In response to applicant’s argument, on page 16-17, that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill would modify Henri, to include the noted teachings of Da in order to generate an improved estimate of the timing offset (Da [0051]).
The rejection is thus maintained to parts are updated to correct minor deficiencies in the previous rejection. Rejection is non-final.
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, 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) 1-2,4-6,12-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210227489 A1 Henry; Jerome et al. in view of US 20160302165 A1 Da; Ren et al.
Consider Claims 1 and 12
Henry teaches A base station apparatus (Fig. 1 104 AP1, AP2 etc.; [0030] “..process of determining the location-related data for at least some of the access points 104 in the geographic area 102..”) comprising:
a memory configured to store an initial planned location of the base station apparatus (Fig. 2, [0044] “..the computer system(s) 202 may include, and/or access, a data store 230. The data store 230 may include a file store including data associated with one or more of the access points 104, data associated with the locations of the one or more access points 104..”);
- a transceiver ([0039] “..respective transceivers associated with the access points 104..”) configured to
receive first wireless messages from a master base station (Fig. 8, [0062] “..a plurality of access points 104 exchanging ranging data RD between neighbor access points 104..”), each first wireless message comprising a first timestamp indicating a transmission time of the first wireless message ([0016] “..The ranging data may be based at least in part on at least one of fine timing measurements or time-of-flight-based measurements.”, Fig. 7, [0059] “..the ranging data RD1 and RD2 includes confidence levels and timestamps associated with the respective ranging data. ..”; Examiner also notes that transmitting time-stamps information is part of the FTM protocol and a common measure in frame of the exchange of messages for ranging). and
to transmit second wireless messages (, [0062] “..a plurality of access points 104 exchanging ranging data RD between neighbor access points 104..”), each second wireless message comprising
a second timestamp indicating a transmission time of the second wireless message (Fig. 7, [0059] “..the ranging data RD1 and RD2 includes confidence levels and timestamps associated with the respective ranging data. ..”) and
a location estimate of the base station apparatus ([0035] “..ranging data may include one or more of locations of the neighbor access points, relative locations between neighbor access points, or confidence levels associated with the relative locations between the respective neighbor access points..”),
to receive second wireless messages from peer base station apparatuses ([0027] “..exchanging ranging data and location-related data between neighboring access point..”; [0062] “..a plurality of access points 104 exchanging ranging data RD between neighbor access points 104..”), and
to receive third wireless messages from the master base station ([0027] “..exchanging ranging data and location-related data between neighboring access point..”; ¶62), wherein the third wireless message comprises timestamps indicating for each second wireless message of a current iteration of an iterative process, a point in time (Fig. 7, [0059] “..the ranging data RD1 and RD2 includes confidence levels and timestamps associated with the respective ranging data. ..”)
at least one processing core configured to determine a location of the base station apparatus by performing the iterative process (Fig. 8, [0062] “..process 804 may also include, over time, exchanging additional ranging data indicative of additional relative distances between at least some pairs of the plurality of access points 104, and determining, based at least in part on the additional ranging data and/or the additional location-related data, updated location-related data for at least some of the access points..”; [0063] “..as repeated ranging data exchanges take place..”),
wherein each iteration comprises:
- determining an updated location estimate of the base station apparatus based on a received first wireless message, received at least one second wireless message and a received third wireless message (Fig. 8, [0062]-[0063] “..process 804 for updating location-related data associated with at least some of the access points 104 based on the exchange of ranging data RD..”), and
- determining a quality criterion of the updated location estimate of the base station apparatus ([0039] “..a confidence level component 220 configured to determine confidence levels associated with the location-related data associated with the access points 104..”).
Henry does not teach the timestamps [in third wireless message] indicate a point in time when the master base station received the respective second wireless message, wherein one of the first wireless message or the third wireless message comprises a location estimate of the master base station.
Da TEACHES [the first and second] timestamp[s] indicating a transmission time of the first wireless message (¶27 “the reference signals may be transmitted at a predetermined time (measured at the transmitting base station) or they may include a timestamp that indicates the transmission time at the transmitting base station”)
Da (See: Fig. 4, [0051] For example, the second base station may provide information indicating its location to the first base station. The information indicating the timing offsets and location information (if provided) can be transmitted over an interface (such as an X2-AP interface) between the two base stations. The interface may support information elements that convey a base station identifier, a timestamp indicating when the measurement of the timing offset was obtained, the timing offset measurement, and, in some embodiments, information indicating the location of the base station. The first base station may use the first and second timing offsets, as well as location information (if provided), to generate an improved estimate of the timing offset, as discussed herein.; See also [0028]) further teaches wherein the third wireless message comprises timestamps indicating for each second wireless message of a current iteration of an iterative process, a point in time when the master base station received the respective second wireless message (“a timestamp indicating when the measurement of the timing offset was obtained”), wherein one of the first wireless message or the third wireless message comprises a location estimate of the master base station (‘location information’).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Henry to include the noted teachings of Da in order to generate an improved estimate of the timing offset (Da [0051]).
Consider Claims 2 and 13
Henry teaches The base station apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the base station apparatus is configured to determine the updated location estimate further based on a ratio between a first time delay and a second time delay, the first time delay elapsing between transmission of the first wireless message from the master base station and transmission of the third wireless message from the master base station, and the second time delay being obtained by subtracting from a time of receipt of the second wireless message in the master base station the time of transmission of the first wireless message from the master base station and a time-of-flight between the base station apparatus and the master base station ([0016] “..Determining the first interior location-related data for the first interior access point may include exchanging ranging data indicative of a first relative distance between the first edge access point and the first interior access point. The ranging data may be based at least in part on at least one of fine timing measurements or time-of-flight-based measurements..” where well known that FTM and time-of-flight protocols as disclosed are based on time of flight and time between messages).
Consider Claims 4 and 15
Henry teaches The base station apparatus according to claims 1, wherein the third wireless message comprises a timestamp indicating a point in time, when the master base station transmitted the third wireless message ([0016] “..Determining the first interior location-related data for the first interior access point may include exchanging ranging data indicative of a first relative distance between the first edge access point and the first interior access point. The ranging data may be based at least in part on at least one of fine timing measurements or time-of-flight-based measurements..” timestamp is part of the FTM protocol and further inherent part of time-of-flight positioning ).
Consider Claims 5 and 16
5. The base station apparatus according to claims 1, wherein the quality criterion is proportional to a change in the updated location estimate of the base station apparatus with respect to an immediately preceding iteration of the iterative process ([0063] “..as repeated ranging data exchanges take place between the stations 106 and the access points 104 and/or between neighboring access points 104, the accuracy of the location-related data for each access point pair of the exchanges may also increase…” thus proportional)., and
the at least one processing core is configured to stop the iterative process responsive to the change being below a threshold ([0063] “.. In some examples, once the confidence levels for an access point pair reaches a threshold confidence level, access points that include LCI may be caused to skip the ranging exchange with access points that also have an LCI associated with a high confidence level…” where confidence is a measure of accuracy thus responsive to change and a high threshold of confidence is equivalent to low threshold of change).
Consider Claims 6 and 17
Henry teaches The base station apparatus according to claims 1,
wherein the base station apparatus is configured as a non-master base station apparatus ([0030] “..a plurality of access points 104 (e.g., AP1, AP2, AP3, . . . APn)..”), and
is further configured to determine a distance from the base station apparatus to another non-master base station apparatus based on timing values of the first, second and third wireless messages ([0021] “..determining the first interior location-related data for the first interior access point may include exchanging ranging data indicative of a first relative distance between the first edge access point and the first interior access point..”).
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 UMAIR AHSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-5 PM EST or by emailing UMAIR.AHSAN@USPTO.GOV.
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.
UMAIR AHSAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/UMAIR AHSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
