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 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument: Applicant argued (REM 11/11/2025, page 9, 2nd last paragraph):
“In particular, the presently claimed embodiment provides a positioning database computing method, wherein the comparing collected data comprises comparing a difference value between a signal strength of the collected data and a signal strength of the existing positioning database with a reference value,
determining that the data is similar when the difference value is less than the reference value, and determining that the data is not similar when the difference value is greater than the reference value. This feature is not disclosed in the cited reference.”
Response: Applicant’ invention discloses comparing signal strengths of the collected data and the existing data. Quaid also discloses comparing signal strengths to determine the best match (see CTNF 8/12/2025, page 5, 2nd paragraph). However, Quad compares FOM with a threshold instead of signal strength to determine if the database should be updated. FOM is representative of positioning error. Since positioning is obtained from signal strength comparison (see claim 1, 1st limitation rejection), there is a relationship between signal strength and positioning error. If signal strength error is large, then positioning error would be large and vice versa. Hence, Quad’s FOM (which uses positioning error) can be substituted by signal strength to arrive at Applicant’s invention, since these are obvious variations of each other. This is possible under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales B, E, F).
Argument: Applicant argued (REM 11/11/2025, page 9, last paragraph):
“Specifically, when comparing Claim 1 of the present application with Quaid, Quaid determines the validity of data based on a performance index (FOM), and if improvement is not achieved, it either discards the data or does not perform database (DB) update. In contrast, claim 1 updates the positioning database or generates positioning data in the positioning database depending on whether similarity exists between the collected data and the positioning data in the existing positioning database, based on a similarity determination.
In other words, while Quaid selects data based on the criterion of "whether accuracy is improved" by comparing existing position data and new measurement data, Claim 1 differs in that it updates the database or generates new positioning data based merely on whether similarity exists.”
Response: As stated in the response to argument a), there is relationship between FOM and signal strength (collected data and existing positioning data). Under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales B, F), FOM can be substituted by signal strength.
In both Quad and Applicant’s invention, accuracy is improved, when data is similar since the database is updated (Applicant’s claim 1, 2nd limitation; claim 7) and Quad (Fig. 4, block 428; [0033] discloses “auto update”. Applicant’s comment above on “Claim 1 differs in that it updates the database or generates new positioning data based merely on whether similarity exists.” also results in fine tuning and hence improving the accuracy. Hence, both can be viewed as improving accuracy.
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.
Claims 1 - 5, 7 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quaid (US 20040203885 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Quaid discloses a positioning database computing method (Title; Abstract) comprising:
comparing collected data received from a collection apparatus (Fig. 3, block 206; [0011], lines 7+ discloses “The MPC 162 sends a series of D_CCs signal strength measurements taken by the mobile station to be located to the RS-PDE …”; wherein the collected data is the signal strength measurements taken by the mobile station) with positioning data in an existing positioning database ([0011], line 1 discloses “Once the location database 102 is populated with signal strength data for each grid point of the grid 101…” ) to determine similarity therebetween ([0011], lines 10+ discloses “where an RS-PDE Processor 162 compares these measurements with the records of the location database 102, for determining the best match. The best matching record found in the location database 102 is assumed to represent the current location of the mobile station,…”);
wherein the comparing collected data comprises comparing a difference value between a signal strength of the collected data and a signal strength of the existing positioning database with a reference value (as above),
Quaid does not explicitly disclose:
updating the existing positioning database using the collected data, upon determining that the data is similar as a result of comparison;
and generating positioning data in the positioning database using the collected data, upon determining that the data is not similar as the result of comparison;
determining that the data is similar when the difference value is less than the reference value, and determining that the data is not similar when the difference value is greater than the reference value.
However, Quaid discloses:
Determining positioning error and deciding whether to update the database or not based on whether a figure of merit (FOM) is above/below a threshold (Fig. 4, block 410, 424, 426, 428; [0033]) and uploading the correlated location data to the database ([0018]). Here, the FOM is based on positioning error. However, under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales B, E, F), one of ordinary skill in the art can easily define the FOM as signal strength error (i.e. collected vs database signal strength) and compare that FOM to a threshold.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify the method as taught by Quaid to use signal strength for the FOM. This would allow one to:
update the existing positioning database using the collected data, upon determining that the data is similar as a result of comparison;
generate positioning data in the positioning database using the collected data, upon determining that the data is not similar as the result of comparison.
determining that the data is similar when the difference value is less than the reference value, and determining that the data is not similar when the difference value is greater than the reference value.
(corresponding to Fig. 4, blocks 424, 426, 428, except that when below threshold, the database is updated and when above the threshold, a new record is added, since if above threshold, it means that there is no matching signal strength, so maybe a new location).
Regarding claim 2, Quaid discloses collected data classifying step of classifying the collected data by base station or access point ([0041] discloses “For example, the cell referred to in the foregoing description may relate to a radio cell area, to a group of one or more radio cells, to a sub-cell area, or to any other sub-division of the cellular telecommunications network.”; wherein the base station would correspond to a radio cell area).
Regarding claim 3, Quaid discloses clustering step of clustering the collected data classified through the collected data classifying step into small groups based on a collection position ([0041] discloses “For example, the cell referred to in the foregoing description may relate to a radio cell area, to a group of one or more radio cells, to a sub-cell area, or to any other sub-division of the cellular telecommunications network.”; wherein the small groups are the areas underlined above).
Regarding claim 4, Quaid does not disclose the clustering step comprises, even if it is collected data having the same delimiter, upon determining that it is an area required to be separated, classifying the area as an independent area.
However, under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E & F), this is obvious to try or an obvious variation of what Quaid discloses ([0041], as in claim 3 above). Since areas are already disclosed, adding a new independent area (i.e. separated from a previous area) is obvious to try or an obvious variation of the above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to use Quaid’s method as above, to separate an area into a new independent area as this would be useful if an area was too large or an area underwent environmental changes, as disclosed by Quaid ([0012]).
Regarding claim 5, Quaid discloses the comparing comprising:
determining whether it is an infrastructure recorded in the existing positioning database (Fig. 4, block 408; [0032] discloses “For this purpose in action 408, the DPM 214 selects one cell of all the cells with location data records in the data sample 405, and in action 410 the DPM 214 computes a Figure of Merit (FoM) illustrative of the exactitude of the calculated positioning for the existing sampled records related to that cell…”),
determining similarity between a signal strength of the collected data and a signal strength of an existing positioning database corresponding thereto, upon determining that it is an infrastructure recorded in the existing positioning data as a result of determination ([0011 discloses “ …where an RS-PDE Processor 162 compares these measurements with the records of the location database 102, for determining the best match….”);
and determining whether any one of a positioning database generation process or a positioning database update process is performed according to a result of determining similarity (similarly analyzed as in claim 1).
Claim 7 is similarly analyzed as in claim 1, last 2 limitations. If the signal strength difference is above a threshold, it means that the location is probably a new one and hence it is added to the database.
Regarding claim 8, Quaid discloses the update value is determined to be an average value of the collected data and corresponding positioning data in the existing positioning database (Fig. 5, block 514; [0035] discloses “…in action 514 computes an average, or alternatively a weighted average, of the signal strength values of the selected existing record of the location database on one side, and the signal strength average value computed in action 512 on the other side….”).
Regarding claim 9, Quaid discloses a weight is given to the collected data in determining the update value (Fig. 5, block 514; [0035] discloses “…in action 514 computes an average, or alternatively a weighted average, of the signal strength values of the selected existing record of the location database on one side, and the signal strength average value computed in action 512 on the other side….”).
Regarding claim 10, Quaid discloses updating a live parameter value in a positioning database when the positioning database is generated or updated (Fig. 5, block 516; [0035] discloses “…Finally, in action 516, the DCD 446 creates an updated location data record including the latest timestamp of the new location data, the signal strength values averaged in action 514, and the current position of the grid point under consideration…”; wherein the update live parameter is interpreted as the latest timestamp).
Regarding claim 11, Quaid discloses a live parameter of positioning data generated or updated in the positioning database is set to a default value (Fig. 5, block 516; [0035] discloses “…Finally, in action 516, the DCD 446 creates an updated location data record including the latest timestamp of the new location data, the signal strength values averaged in action 514, and the current position of the grid point under consideration…”; wherein the default value is interpreted as the latest timestamp).
Regarding claim 12, Quaid discloses the default value of the live parameter is set to a positive integer value greater than 1 (Fig. 5, block 516; [0035] discloses timestamp, which is greater than 1).
Regarding claim 13, Quaid does not disclose when the positioning database is generated or updated, a live parameter value of positioning data which is not generated or updated in the positioning database is reduced by '1'.
However, this is obvious to try or an obvious variation of what Quaid discloses, Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E & F).
Quaid discloses creating a new record with the latest timestamp (Fig. 5, block 516) and discarding records older than X (Fig. 3, block 211; [0031] discloses “In action 211, the DTS 210 may optionally discard the received location data that has timestamps older than a predefined number of days, so that only recent location data is used”).
Applicant’s method of decrementing a timer count by 1 and then deleting the record when the count reaches 0 essentially has the same purpose of deleting older records.
In Quaid’s method, one of ordinary skill in the art can create a timer count with a value = threshold – (current time - time when record was created). Each time a new set of collected data is obtained, the timer can be reduced by 1. When this timer reaches 0, the record can be discarded. This and Applicant’s method are obvious variations of each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to modify Quaid’s method as above, as this would be another way of implementing a timer operation that can be used to determine when a record should be discarded.
Claim 14 is similarly analyzed as in claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, Quaid discloses a positioning database computing apparatus (Title; Abstract) comprising
a positioning database configured to store radio positioning data (Abstract discloses “…a location database …”; Fig. 4, block 215);
and a positioning database controller configured to control generation and update of the positioning database (controller is inherent to perform Fig. 5 operations).
All other limitations of claim 15 are analyzed as in claim 1 above.
Claim 16 is similarly analyzed as in claim 5.
Claim 17 is similarly analyzed as in claims 7 and 8.
Claim 18 is similarly analyzed as in claims 10, 11, 12, 13.
Claim 19 is similarly analyzed as in claim 14.
Claim 20 is similarly analyzed as in claims 1, 15.
Claim 20 additionally recites the limitations “An emergency radio signal transmission position tracking apparatus … and …. when the emergency radio signal is received”.
“Emergency situation involving a mobile subscriber…” is disclosed by Quaid ([0005]). Further, ([0011]) discloses “Once the location database 102 is populated with signal strength data for each grid point of the grid 101, a Mobile Positioning Center (MPC) 162 with access to the RS-PDE's processor 160 and to the location database 102 may find the location of any mobile station of the cellular network for responding to emergency situations …”.. Hence, the emergency radio signal transmission is the signal transmitted by the mobile subscriber.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
The following patents/publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to positioning database updating:
Liu et al. (US 20150050948 A1) discloses Method for Performing Positioning Database Management.
Lightstone et al. (US 20060112093 A1) discloses Method, System, And Program for Collecting Statistics of Data Stored in A Database.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is (571)272-1043. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/ADOLF DSOUZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632