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 .
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of IN202021033292 filed 8/4/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/5/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/2026 have been fully considered
but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: The applicant argues that Sendonaris or Moeglein does not disclose "transmit, to the network entity, speed information and heading information associated with the UE; obtain topographic information regarding physical features of a region associated with the UE and the plurality of positioning signals, wherein the topographic information is based on the speed information and the heading information...," as recited in amended independent claim 1, and similarly recited in amended independent claim 16. The applicant argues that Independent claims 8 and 24 are network side claims that includes amendments that also include "speed information and heading information associated with the UE," and mot disclosed by cited prior arts for similar reasons as independent claims 1 and 16
Response 1: The examiner disagrees. Claim amendment has changed the scope of invention. Amended independent Claims 1, 8, 16 and 24 are now rejected with Sendonaris et al. (US 2014/0266911 A1), in view of Moeglein et al. (US 2010/0178934 A1), and further in view of White (US 2022/0070619 A1).
Argument 2: The applicant argues that Sasao does not teach a scheme that would involve "determine a future location of the UE based on a velocity, a trajectory, and a flight path associated with the UE: and obtain at least some of the topographic information from the camera based on the future location" as recited by amended dependent claim 6.
Response 2: The examiner disagrees. Claim amendment has changed the scope of invention. Claim 6 is now rejected with Sendonaris et al. (US 2014/0266911 A1)/Moeglein et al. (US 2010/0178934 A1)/White (US 2022/0070619 A1), in view of Edge (US 2014/0162688 A1).
Amendment to claims 1, 8 and 16 has been acknowledged.
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 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-14, 16-20, 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sendonaris et al. (US 2014/0266911 A1), in view of Moeglein et al. (US 2010/0178934 A1), and further in view of White (US 2022/0070619 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sendonaris et al. (‘911) discloses “a user equipment (UE) (paragraph 92: Figure 7: User Equipment (UE)…receiver system 700) comprising:
a transceiver (paragraph 92: Figure 7: RF component 730) configured to send and receive signals wirelessly to and from a network entity exchange information (paragraph 92: Figure 7: Receiver system 700 may include any of a variety of electronic devices configured to receive RF or other signaling using wireless means (radio frequency, Wi-Fi, Wi-Max, Bluetooth, or other wireless channels as is known or later developed in the art), or wired means (e.g., Ethernet, USB, flash RAM, or other similar channels as is known or later developed in the art)… RF component 730 may control the exchange of information with other systems; Figures 2A-2D);
memory (Figure 7: memory 720); and
a processor (Figure 7: 710), communicatively coupled to the transceiver (Figure 7: 730) and the memory (Figure 7: 720), configured to:
obtain one or more transmission characteristics corresponding to each of a plurality of positioning signals (paragraph 92: signals from transmitters received and processed to extract information used to compute an estimated position of receiver system 700);
obtain topographic information regarding physical features of a region associated 3333with the UE and the plurality of positioning signals (paragraph 68: Signal characteristic(s) of each ranging signal in the first set may be determined (420). The signal characteristics may include geographic information associated with the ranging signals…the geographic information may include the location of the transmitter that transmitted the signal (e.g., latitude, longitude, altitude), or it may include the relative location of a transmitter that transmitted the ranging signal with respect to the estimated position of the receiver (e.g., an estimated azimuth, or set of position coordinates relating to the transmitter; paragraph 74: identifying, from a plurality of ranging signals received by a receiver, a first set of visible ranging signals from the network of transmitters…associating each transmitter that transmitted a ranging signal from the first set with at least one of three or more groups based on geographic information associated with of that transmitter)”,
“based on the one or more transmission characteristics and the topographic information, measure one or more selected positioning signals, of the plurality of positioning signals (Paragraph 18: grouping ranging signals based on geographic characteristics of those ranging signals (e.g., the location of transmitters from which those ranging signals originated) and/or based on quality of those ranging signals (e.g., the effect range measurements, corresponding to those ranging signals, would have on the accuracy of an estimate of a receiver's position; paragraph 58: the quality metric may relate to one or more of the following metrics…estimated range error…trilateration weight, which results from an estimate of ranging error standard deviation…range quality determined using terrain and/or building map information in the direction of the transmitters or from the set of range measurements or from measurements of the signals themselves…estimated distance to transmitter…angle of incidence of transmitter, defined as the angle between a straight line from the transmitter to the location or estimated location of the receiver and a horizontal or vertical plane at the location or estimated location of the receiver and others; paragraph 74: determining an estimated position of the receiver using at least one range measurement corresponding to at least one ranging signal from at least one transmitter in each of the three or more groups….the geographic information may be provided by the transmitters (e.g., latitude, longitude, altitude of the transmitter, or a mapped region within which the transmitter resides))”,
“measure the one or more selected positioning signals to produce one or more measurements (paragraph 71: a determination is made as to whether the number of ranging signals associated with that group is greater than an integer M (445)…when the number is equal to or less than M, the estimated position is determined using range measurements corresponding to each of the ranging signals in that group (446).,,when the number is greater than M, the estimated position is determined using a selection of M range measurements corresponding to M ranging signals associated with quality metric values that are at least equal to each quality metric value for the other unused ranging signals in that group (447)).”
Sendonaris et al. (‘911) does not explicitly disclose “determine, based on the one or more transmission characteristics and the topographic information, whether to measure one or more selected positioning signals, of the plurality of positioning signals.”
Moeglein et al. (‘934) relates to wireless positioning. Moeglein et al. (‘934) teaches “determine, based on the one or more transmission characteristics and the topographic information, whether to measure one or more selected positioning signals, of the plurality of positioning signals (Figure 4; paragraph 29: more precise, type of measurement is a pseudorange estimate from a transmitter with a highly stable frequency source and a well-established repeating signal pattern that can be detected to establish a pseudorange estimate…timing of the signal may be unknown, but repeatable and slowly varying over time due to a highly accurate frequency source…it may also be useful to observe characteristics of timing errors, such as change rate, spread characteristics and any other associated reliability information…filters similar in nature to those described for detecting and modeling coverage areas can be used to detect and model timing offsets, change rates, error biases and spreads; paragraph 35: mobile station may obtain measurements from signals received from various sources…such measurements may be used to estimate a location of such a mobile station…such measurements may include time/distance readings from respective base stations transmitting such pilot signals…such time/distance readings may be used to derive pseudorange measurements to the mobile station receiving the pilot signal…measurement sources may include one or more transmitters for transmitting measurements via, for example, one or more signals; paragraph 36: an error estimate may be quantified as, for example, a fixed value in a given set of units (such as units of time or distance) at a specified confidence level or number of standard deviations, all meant to imply that the error will be less than an associated value a certain percentage of the time…error estimates may also be taken from a terrain elevation model that determines whether a mobile station is likely to have a very indirect signal path or a direct line of sight to a given beacon.; paragraph 47: location server 145 may maintain a measurement error model/map in which estimated measurement errors for various measurement sources may be maintained…such a measurement error model/map may be determined based on a history of measurements…an error model/map may start with an initial distribution, assumed for a given beacon type and modeled parameter…such an initial distribution may also be learned from nearby beacons with similar characteristics…a modeled error distribution may be updated after receipt of each new error estimate from such a mobile station…such a measurement error model/map may be stored in a memory device located within such a location server 145, or accessible to such a location server 145…such a measurement error model/map may also include a history of measurement errors corresponding to one or more measurement sources, such as, for example, base stations…mobile station 105 may obtain measurements from nearby base stations and provide them to location server 145…location server 145 may, in turn, determine weightings for each received measurement based on various factors such as signal strength corresponding to a pilot signal transmitted from a particular base station and an error estimate associated with such a measurement…other factors may additionally be considered in determining an appropriate weighting for a measurement from a base station).”
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 user equipment (UE) of Sendonaris et al. (‘911) with the teaching of Moeglein et al. (‘934) for improved position determination (Moeglein et al. (‘934)– paragraph 5). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Sendonaris et al. (‘911) and Moeglein et al. (‘934)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, determining geographical location of user equipment of mobile device.
Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)) does not explicitly disclose “transmit, to the network entity, speed information and heading information associated with the UE”, “the topographic information is based on the speed information and the heading information.”
White (‘619) relates to detecting location-based events and/or points of interest. White (‘619) teaches “transmit, to the network entity, speed information and heading information associated with the UE”, “the topographic information is based on the speed information and the heading information (paragraph 45: the location information, and/or the orientation change of the UE101 can be determined from probe data, for example, retrieved from the geographic database 113…probe data, for instance, can include geolocation information (e.g., geographic coordinates, heading, speed, etc.) recorded by the UE 101 and transmitted to the system 100).”
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 user equipment (UE) of Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934) with the teaching of White (‘619) for improved position determination (White (‘619) – paragraph 7). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Sendonaris et al. (‘911), Moeglein et al. (‘934) and White (‘619)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, determining geographical location of user equipment of mobile device.
Regarding claim 2, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) discloses the user equipment (UE) of claim 1. Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/White (‘619) does not explicitly disclose “the processor is configured to determine the one or more selected positioning signals such that each positioning signal source corresponding to the one or more selected positioning signals has line of sight with a location of the UE.”
Moeglein et al. (‘934) relates to wireless positioning. Moeglein et al. (‘934) teaches “the processor is configured to determine the one or more selected positioning signals such that each positioning signal source corresponding to the one or more selected positioning signals has line of sight with a location of the UE (paragraph 24: there may be multiple sources of measurements used in estimating a location of, for example, a mobile station….an Advanced Forward Link Trilateration (AFLT) system utilizing various base stations may provide such measurements; paragraph 95: by utilizing a history of measurements to determine and periodically update measurement errors associated with certain areas of a coverage area, as discussed above, a location of a mobile station may be determined with more accuracy than would be possible if only static a priori measurement errors were utilized).”
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 user equipment (UE) of Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/White (‘619) with the teaching of Moeglein et al. (‘934) for improved position determination (Moeglein et al. (‘934)– paragraph 5). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Sendonaris et al. (‘911), Moeglein et al. (‘934) and White (‘619)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, determining geographical location of user equipment of mobile device.
Regarding claim 3, which is dependent on claim 2, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) discloses the user equipment (UE) of claim 2. Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/White (‘619) does not explicitly disclose “the location of the UE is a present location of the UE or a future location of the UE.”
Moeglein et al. (‘934) relates to wireless positioning. Moeglein et al. (‘934) teaches “the location of the UE is a present location of the UE or a future location of the UE (paragraph 24: there may be multiple sources of measurements used in estimating a location of, for example, a mobile station. In one implementation, an Advanced Forward Link Trilateration (AFLT) system utilizing various base stations may provide such measurements.; paragraph 95: by utilizing a history of measurements to determine and periodically update measurement errors associated with certain areas of a coverage area, as discussed above, a location of a mobile station may be determined with more accuracy than would be possible if only static a priori measurement errors were utilized).”
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 user equipment (UE) of Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/White (‘619) with the teaching of Moeglein et al. (‘934) for improved position determination (Moeglein et al. (‘934)– paragraph 5). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Sendonaris et al. (‘911), Moeglein et al. (‘934) and White (‘619)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, determining geographical location of user equipment of mobile device.
Regarding claim 4, which is dependent on claim 3, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) discloses the user equipment (UE) of claim 3. Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/White (‘619) does not explicitly disclose “the processor is configured to determine the future location of the UE based on at least one of a velocity, trajectory, or flight path of the UE, and the processor is configured to determine the one or more selected positioning signals such that there are sufficient selected positioning signals to determine a location estimate by trilateration.”
Moeglein et al. (‘934) relates to wireless positioning. Moeglein et al. (‘934) teaches “the processor is configured to determine the future location of the UE based on at least one of a velocity, trajectory, or flight path of the UE, and the processor is configured to determine the one or more selected positioning signals such that there are sufficient selected positioning signals to determine a location estimate by trilateration (paragraph 24: there may be multiple sources of measurements used in estimating a location of, for example, a mobile station. In one implementation, an Advanced Forward Link Trilateration (AFLT) system utilizing various base stations may provide such measurements.; paragraph 95: by utilizing a history of measurements to determine and periodically update measurement errors associated with certain areas of a coverage area, as discussed above, a location of a mobile station may be determined with more accuracy than would be possible if only static a priori measurement errors were utilized).”
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 user equipment (UE) of Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/White (‘619) with the teaching of Moeglein et al. (‘934) for improved position determination (Moeglein et al. (‘934)– paragraph 5). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Sendonaris et al. (‘911), Moeglein et al. (‘934) and White (‘619)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, determining geographical location of user equipment of mobile device.
Regarding claim 5, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) discloses the user equipment (UE) of claim 1. Sendonaris et al. (‘911) further discloses “for each positioning signal of the plurality of positioning signals, the one or more transmission characteristics comprise a horizontal location of a positioning signal source, or an elevation of the positioning signal source, or a transmit power of the positioning signal, or a direction of transmission of the positioning signal, or a combination of two or more thereof, and wherein the topographic information comprises, for each structure of one or more structures, a structure horizontal location, a structure width, and a structure height (paragraph 18: grouping ranging signals based on geographic characteristics of those ranging signals (e.g., the location of transmitters from which those ranging signals originated) and/or based on quality of those ranging signals (e.g., the effect range measurements, corresponding to those ranging signals, would have on the accuracy of an estimate of a receiver's position); paragraph 58: the quality metric may relate to one or more of the following metrics…estimated range error… trilateration weight, which results from an estimate of ranging error standard deviation…range quality determined using terrain and/or building map information in the direction of the transmitters or from the set of range measurements or from measurements of the signals themselves…estimated distance to transmitter…angle of incidence of transmitter, defined as the angle between a straight line from the transmitter to the location or estimated location of the receiver and a horizontal or vertical plane at the location or estimated location of the receiver).”
Regarding independent claim 8, Sendonaris et al. (‘911) discloses “a network entity (Figure 6: Transmitter system 600) comprising:
a transceiver (Figure 6: Terrestrial RF 650) configured to send and receive signals to and from a user equipment (UE) (paragraph 91: Figure 6: transmitter system 600 at which signals may be generated and transmitted);
a memory (paragraph 91: Figure 6: one or more memories 620); and
a processor (paragraph 91: Figure 6: processor 610), communicatively coupled to the transceiver (650) and the memory (paragraph 91: Figure 6: one or more memories 620), configured to:
obtain one or more transmission characteristics corresponding to each of a plurality of positioning signals corresponding to a plurality of transmission/reception points (paragraph 39: the quality of range measurements or other information extracted from ranging signals transmitted by transmitters in relation to the effect such information would have on the accuracy of a position estimate if used during trilateration…the terms do not necessarily refer to the quality of the signals themselves…it may be the case that signal strength is high for a received signal that emanates from a transmitter known to be located in the middle of an urban canyon, having strong multipath. In this case, the location of the transmitter, relative to the receiver's true or estimated position, may negatively contribute to a quality metric that measures a multipath quality of the signal, even though the signal strength may exceed a minimum strength threshold…the signal characteristics themselves may be paramount. the quality metric, as further detailed later, may measure a variety of information);
obtain horizontal location information for the UE, vertical location information for the UE, (paragraph 68: Signal characteristic(s) of each ranging signal in the first set may be determined (420). The signal characteristics may include geographic information associated with the ranging signals…the geographic information may include the location of the transmitter that transmitted the signal (e.g., latitude, longitude, altitude), or it may include the relative location of a transmitter that transmitted the ranging signal with respect to the estimated position of the receiver (e.g., an estimated azimuth, or set of position coordinates relating to the transmitter; paragraph 58: the quality metric may relate to one or more of the following metrics: estimated range error…trilateration weight, which results from an estimate of ranging error standard deviation…range quality determined using terrain and/or building map information in the direction of the transmitters or from the set of range measurements or from measurements of the signals themselves…estimated distance to transmitter…angle of incidence of transmitter, defined as the angle between a straight line from the transmitter to the location or estimated location of the receiver and a horizontal or vertical plane at the location or estimated location of the receiver);
determine, based on the one or more transmission characteristics and the horizontal location information for the UE, the vertical location information for the UE, have the UE measure one or more selected positioning signals, of the plurality of positioning signals (paragraph 58: the quality metric may relate to one or more of the following metrics: estimated range error…trilateration weight, which results from an estimate of ranging error standard deviation…range quality determined using terrain and/or building map information in the direction of the transmitters or from the set of range measurements or from measurements of the signals themselves…estimated distance to transmitter…angle of incidence of transmitter, defined as the angle between a straight line from the transmitter to the location or estimated location of the receiver and a horizontal or vertical plane at the location or estimated location of the receiver and others; paragraph 74: identifying, from a plurality of ranging signals received by a receiver, a first set of visible ranging signals from the network of transmitters…associating each transmitter that transmitted a ranging signal from the first set with at least one of three or more groups based on geographic information associated with of that transmitter…and determining an estimated position of the receiver using at least one range measurement corresponding to at least one ranging signal from at least one transmitter in each of the three or more groups…the geographic information may be provided by the transmitters (e.g., latitude, longitude, altitude of the transmitter, or a mapped region within which the transmitter resides)); and
send one or more messages to the UE to instruct the UE to measure, from the plurality of positioning signals, only the one or more selected positioning signals (paragraph 71: a determination is made as to whether the number of ranging signals associated with that group is greater than an integer M (445)…when the number is equal to or less than M, the estimated position is determined using range measurements corresponding to each of the ranging signals in that group (446). When the number is greater than M, the estimated position is determined using a selection of M range measurements corresponding to M ranging signals associated with quality metric values that are at least equal to each quality metric value for the other unused ranging signals in that group (447)).”
Sendonaris et al. (‘911) does not explicitly disclose “determine, based on the one or more transmission characteristics and the horizontal location information for the UE and the vertical location information for the UE,whether to have the UE measure one or more selected positioning signals, of the plurality of positioning signals.”
Moeglein et al. (‘934) relates to wireless positioning. Moeglein et al. (‘934) teaches “determine, based on the one or more transmission characteristics and the horizontal location information for the UE and the vertical location information for the UE, whether to have the UE measure one or more selected positioning signals, of the plurality of positioning signals (Figure 4; paragraph 29: more precise, type of measurement is a pseudorange estimate from a transmitter with a highly stable frequency source and a well-established repeating signal pattern that can be detected to establish a pseudorange estimate…timing of the signal may be unknown, but repeatable and slowly varying over time due to a highly accurate frequency source…it may also be useful to observe characteristics of timing errors, such as change rate, spread characteristics and any other associated reliability information…filters similar in nature to those described for detecting and modeling coverage areas can be used to detect and model timing offsets, change rates, error biases and spreads; paragraph 35: mobile station may obtain measurements from signals received from various sources…such measurements may be used to estimate a location of such a mobile station…such measurements may include time/distance readings from respective base stations transmitting such pilot signals…such time/distance readings may be used to derive pseudorange measurements to the mobile station receiving the pilot signal… measurement sources may include one or more transmitters for transmitting measurements via, for example, one or more signals; paragraph 36: an error estimate may be quantified as, for example, a fixed value in a given set of units (such as units of time or distance) at a specified confidence level or number of standard deviations, all meant to imply that the error will be less than an associated value a certain percentage of the time…error estimates may also be taken from a terrain elevation model that determines whether a mobile station is likely to have a very indirect signal path or a direct line of sight to a given beacon.; paragraph 47: location server 145 may maintain a measurement error model/map in which estimated measurement errors for various measurement sources may be maintained…such a measurement error model/map may be determined based on a history of measurements…an error model/map may start with an initial distribution, assumed for a given beacon type and modeled parameter…such an initial distribution may also be learned from nearby beacons with similar characteristics…a modeled error distribution may be updated after receipt of each new error estimate from such a mobile station…such a measurement error model/map may be stored in a memory device located within such a location server 145, or accessible to such a location server 145…such a measurement error model/map may also include a history of measurement errors corresponding to one or more measurement sources, such as, for example, base stations…mobile station 105 may obtain measurements from nearby base stations and provide them to location server 145…location server 145 may, in turn, determine weightings for each received measurement based on various factors such as signal strength corresponding to a pilot signal transmitted from a particular base station and an error estimate associated with such a measurement…other factors may additionally be considered in determining an appropriate weighting for a measurement from a base station).”
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 network entity of Sendonaris et al. (‘911) with the teaching of Moeglein et al. (‘934) for improved position determination (Moeglein et al. (‘934)– paragraph 5). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Sendonaris et al. (‘911) and Moeglein et al. (‘934)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, determining geographical location of user equipment of mobile device.
Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)) does not explicitly disclose obtain “speed information for the UE, and heading information for the UE “, determine, based “the speed information for the UE, and the heading information for the UE”, have the UE measure one or more selected positioning signals.”
White (‘619) relates to detecting location-based events and/or points of interest. White (‘619) teaches obtain “speed information for the UE, and heading information for the UE “, determine, based “the speed information for the UE, and the heading information for the UE”, have the UE measure one or more selected positioning signals (paragraph 45: the location information, and/or the orientation change of the UE101 can be determined from probe data, for example, retrieved from the geographic database 113…probe data, for instance, can include geolocation information (e.g., geographic coordinates, heading, speed, etc.) recorded by the UE 101 and transmitted to the system 100).”
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 network entity of Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934) with the teaching of White (‘619) for improved position determination (White (‘619) – paragraph 7). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Sendonaris et al. (‘911), Moeglein et al. (‘934) and White (‘619)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, determining geographical location of user equipment of mobile device.
Regarding claim 9, which is dependent on independent claim 8, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) discloses the network entity of claim 8. Sendonaris et al. (‘911) further discloses “the processor is further configured to obtain topographic information regarding physical features of a region associated with the UE and the plurality of positioning signals, and wherein the processor is configured to determine the one or more selected positioning signals based further on the topographic information (paragraph 74: identifying, from a plurality of ranging signals received by a receiver, a first set of visible ranging signals from the network of transmitters… associating each transmitter that transmitted a ranging signal from the first set with at least one of three or more groups based on geographic information associated with of that transmitter).”
Regarding claim 10, which is dependent on claim 9, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) discloses the network entity of claim 9. Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/White (‘619) does not explicitly disclose “the processor is configured to determine the one or more selected positioning signals such that each positioning signal source corresponding to the one or more selected positioning signals has line of sight with the UE.”
Moeglein et al. (‘934) relates to wireless positioning. Moeglein et al. (‘934) teaches “the processor is configured to determine the one or more selected positioning signals such that each positioning signal source corresponding to the one or more selected positioning signals has line of sight with the UE (paragraph 24: there may be multiple sources of measurements used in estimating a location of, for example, a mobile station. In one implementation, an Advanced Forward Link Trilateration (AFLT) system utilizing various base stations may provide such measurements; paragraph 95: by utilizing a history of measurements to determine and periodically update measurement errors associated with certain areas of a coverage area, as discussed above, a location of a mobile station may be determined with more accuracy than would be possible if only static a priori measurement errors were utilized).”
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 network entity of Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/White (‘619) with the teaching of Moeglein et al. (‘934) for improved position determination (Moeglein et al. (‘934)– paragraph 5). In addition, all of the prior art references, (Sendonaris et al. (‘911), Moeglein et al. (‘934) and White (‘619)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, determining geographical location of user equipment of mobile device.
Regarding claim 11, which is dependent on claim 9, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) discloses the network entity of claim 9. Sendonaris et al. (‘911) further discloses “for each of the plurality of positioning signals, the one or more transmission characteristics comprise a positioning signal source horizontal location, or a positioning signal source elevation, or a transmit power, or a combination of two or more thereof, and wherein the topographic information comprises, for each structure of one or more structures, a structure horizontal location, a structure width, and a structure height (paragraph 18: grouping ranging signals based on geographic characteristics of those ranging signals and/or based on quality of those ranging signals; paragraph 58: he quality metric may relate to one or more of the following metrics: estimated range error… trilateration weight, which results from an estimate of ranging error standard deviation…range quality determined using terrain and/or building map information in the direction of the transmitters or from the set of range measurements or from measurements of the signals themselves…estimated distance to transmitter…angle of incidence of transmitter, defined as the angle between a straight line from the transmitter to the location or estimated location of the receiver and a horizontal or vertical plane at the location or estimated location of the receiver and others).”
Regarding claim 12, which is dependent on independent claim 8, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) discloses the network entity of claim 8. Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/White (‘619) does not explicitly disclose “the processor is further configured to obtain expected location information for the UE, and wherein the processor is configured to determine the one or more selected positioning signals based further on the expected location information.”
Moeglein et al. (‘934) relates to wireless positioning. Moeglein et al. (‘934) teaches “the processor is further configured to obtain expected location information for the UE, and wherein the processor is configured to determine the one or more selected positioning signals based further on the expected location information (paragraph 24: there may be multiple sources of measurements used in estimating a location of, for example, a mobile station. In one implementation, an Advanced Forward Link Trilateration (AFLT) system utilizing various base stations may provide such measurements.; paragraph 95: by utilizing a history of measurements to determine and periodically update measurement errors associated with certain areas of a coverage area, as discussed above, a location of a mobile station may be determined with more accuracy than would be possible if only static a priori measurement errors were utilized).”
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 network entity of Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/White (‘619) with the teaching of Moeglein et al. (‘934) for improved position determination (Moeglein et al. (‘934)– paragraph 5). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Sendonaris et al. (‘911), Moeglein et al. (‘934) and White (‘619)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, determining geographical location of user equipment of mobile device.
Regarding claim 13, which is dependent on claim 12, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) discloses the network entity of claim 12. Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/White (‘619) does not explicitly disclose “the expected location information is an expected location of the UE, and wherein the processor is configured to determine the expected location of the UE based on at least one of a velocity, trajectory, or flight path of the UE.”
Moeglein et al. (‘934) relates to wireless positioning. Moeglein et al. (‘934) teaches “the expected location information is an expected location of the UE, and wherein the processor is configured to determine the expected location of the UE based on at least one of a velocity, trajectory, or flight path of the UE (paragraph 24: there may be multiple sources of measurements used in estimating a location of, for example, a mobile station…an Advanced Forward Link Trilateration (AFLT) system utilizing various base stations may provide such measurements.; paragraph 95: by utilizing a history of measurements to determine and periodically update measurement errors associated with certain areas of a coverage area, as discussed above, a location of a mobile station may be determined with more accuracy than would be possible if only static a priori measurement errors were utilized).”
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 network entity of Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/White (‘619) with the teaching of Moeglein et al. (‘934) for improved position determination (Moeglein et al. (‘934)– paragraph 5). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Sendonaris et al. (‘911), Moeglein et al. (‘934) and White (‘619)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, determining geographical location of user equipment of mobile device.
Regarding claim 14, which is dependent on independent claim 8, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) discloses the network entity of claim 8. Sendonaris et al. (‘911) further discloses “the processor is further configured to: configure an event parameter; and respond to the UE satisfying the event parameter by adjusting one or more of the one or more transmission characteristics for at least one of the plurality of positioning signals (paragraph 92: FIG. 7 illustrates details of receiver system 700, at which signals from transmitters (e.g., transmitter system 600) may be received and processed to extract information used to compute an estimated position of receiver system 700…receiver system 700 may include any of a variety of electronic devices configured to receive RF or other signaling using wireless means (radio frequency, Wi-Fi, Wi-Max, Bluetooth, or other wireless channels as is known or later developed in the art), or wired means (e.g., Ethernet, USB, flash RAM, or other similar channels as is known or later developed in the art)…each receiver system 700 may be in the form of a cellular or smart phone, a tablet device, a PDA, a notebook or other computing device…User Equipment (UE), Mobile Station (MS), User Terminal (UT), SUPL Enabled Terminal (SET), Receiver (Rx), and Mobile Device may be used to refer to receiver system 700…RF component 730 may control the exchange of information with other systems (e.g., satellite, terrestrial)…signal processing may occur at satellite component 740, or terrestrial component 750, which may use separate or shared resources such as antennas, RF circuitry, and the like).”
Regarding independent claim 16, which is a corresponding method claim of independent device claim 1, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, which is dependent on independent claim 16, and which is a corresponding method claim of device claim 2, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, which is dependent on claim 17, and which is a corresponding method claim of device claim 3, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, which is dependent on claim 18, and which is a corresponding method claim of device claim 4, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 4.
Regarding claim 20, which is dependent on independent claim 16, and which is a corresponding method claim of device claim 5, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 5.
Regarding independent claim 24, which is a corresponding method claim of independent device claim 8, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 8.
Regarding claim 25, which is dependent on independent claim 24, and which is a corresponding method claim of device claim 9, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 9.
Regarding claim 26, which is dependent on claim 25, and which is a corresponding method claim of device claim 10, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 10.
Regarding claim 27, which is dependent on claim 25, and which is a corresponding method claim of device claim 11, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 11.
Regarding claim 28, which is dependent on independent claim 24, and which is a corresponding method claim of device claim 12, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 12.
Regarding claim 29, which is dependent on independent claim 24, and which is a corresponding method claim of device claim 14, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 14.
Claims 6-7 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sendonaris et al. (US 2014/0266911 A1)/Moeglein et al. (US 2010/0178934 A1)/White (US 2022/0070619 A1), in view of Edge (US 2014/0162688 A1).
Regarding claim 6, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934) discloses the user equipment (UE) of claim 1. Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934) does not explicitly disclose “a camera communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the processor is configured to determine a future location of the UE based on a velocity, a trajectory, and a flight path associated with the UE: and obtain at least some of the topographic information from the camera based on the future location.”
Edge (‘688) relates to positioning of mobile devices. Edge (‘688) teaches “a camera communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the processor is configured to determine a future location of the UE based on a velocity, a trajectory, and a flight path associated with the UE: and obtain at least some of the topographic information from the camera based on the future location (paragraph 199: UE 1700 may also comprise a dedicated camera device 1764 for capturing still or moving imagery…camera device 1764 may comprise an imaging sensor…additional processing, conditioning, encoding or compression of signals representing captured images may be performed at general purpose processor…alternatively, a dedicated video processor 1768 may perform conditioning, encoding, compression or manipulation of signals representing captured images…additionally, video processor may decode/decompress stored image data for presentation on a display device on UE 1700; paragraph 95: a UE or a network server may predict a form of geographic location based on the UE's current location, speed and heading plus recent movement and/or historical location history; paragraph 123: may enable prediction of a geographic proximity between two or more UEs. In one example, a geographic proximity may be predicted for two UEs, at least in part, using current geographic locations and possibly current velocities of the two UEs to determine whether they are or may later be in proximity).”
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 user equipment (UE) of Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) with the teaching of Edge (‘688) for more accurate tracking of user equipment (Edge (‘688)– paragraph 199). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Sendonaris et al. (‘911), Moeglein et al. (‘934), White (‘619) and Edge (‘688)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, determining geographical location or observable area of user equipment or mobile device.
Regarding claim 7, which is dependent on independent claim 1, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934) discloses the user equipment (UE) of claim 1. Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934) does not explicitly disclose “a camera communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the processor is configured to determine a location of the UE based on the one or more measurements, and wherein the processor is configured to verify the location of the UE based on one or more images provided by the camera.”
Edge (‘688) relates to positioning of mobile devices. Edge (‘688) teaches “a camera communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the processor is configured to determine a location of the UE based on the one or more measurements, and wherein the processor is configured to verify the location of the UE based on one or more images provided by the camera (paragraph 199: UE 1700 may also comprise a dedicated camera device 1764 for capturing still or moving imagery…camera device 1764 may comprise an imaging sensor…additional processing, conditioning, encoding or compression of signals representing captured images may be performed at general purpose processor…alternatively, a dedicated video processor 1768 may perform conditioning, encoding, compression or manipulation of signals representing captured images…additionally, video processor may decode/decompress stored image data for presentation on a display device on UE 1700; paragraph 95: a UE or a network server may predict a form of geographic location based on the UE's current location, speed and heading plus recent movement and/or historical location history).”
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 user equipment (UE) of Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) with the teaching of Edge (‘688) for more accurate tracking of user equipment (Edge (‘688)– paragraph 199). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Sendonaris et al. (‘911), Moeglein et al. (‘934), White (‘619) and Edge (‘688)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, determining geographical location or observable area of user equipment or mobile device.
Regarding claim 21, which is dependent on independent claim 16, and which is a corresponding method claim of device claim 6, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Sasao et al. (‘346) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 6.
Regarding claim 22, which is dependent on claim 21, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619)/Edge (‘688) discloses the method of claim 21. Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) does not explicitly disclose “determining, at the UE, a location of the UE based on the image-based positioning information.”
Edge (‘688) relates to positioning of mobile devices. Edge (‘688) teaches “determining, at the UE, a location of the UE based on the image-based positioning information (paragraph 199: UE 1700 may also comprise a dedicated camera device 1764 for capturing still or moving imagery…camera device 1764 may comprise an imaging sensor…additional processing, conditioning, encoding or compression of signals representing captured images may be performed at general purpose processor…alternatively, a dedicated video processor 1768 may perform conditioning, encoding, compression or manipulation of signals representing captured images…additionally, video processor may decode/ decompress stored image data for presentation on a display device on UE 1700; paragraph 95: a UE or a network server may predict a form of geographic location based on the UE's current location, speed and heading plus recent movement and/or historical location history).”
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 user equipment (UE) of Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) with the teaching of Edge (‘688) for more accurate tracking of user equipment (Edge (‘688)– paragraph 199). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Sendonaris et al. (‘911), Moeglein et al. (‘934), White (‘619) and Edge (‘688)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, determining geographical location or observable area of user equipment or mobile device.
Regarding claim 23, which is dependent on claim 21, and which is a corresponding method claim of device claim 7, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619)/Edge (‘688) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 7.
Claims 15 and 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sendonaris et al. (US 2014/0266911 A1)/Moeglein et al. (US 2010/178934 A1)/White (US 2022/0070619 A1), and further in view of Priyanto et al. (WO 2020/068310 A1).
Regarding claim 15, which is dependent on independent claim 8, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) discloses the network entity of claim 8. Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) does not explicitly disclose “the processor is further configured to configure one or more positioning signal muting patterns based on the horizontal location information for the UE and the vertical location information for the UE.”
Priyanto et al. (‘310) relates to wireless positioning. Priyanto et al. (‘310) teaches “the processor is further configured to configure one or more positioning signal muting patterns based on the horizontal location information for the UE and the vertical location information for the UE (Figure 2: PRS scheduling; paragraph 34: Figure 2 is a signal flow diagram that illustrates various signal transmissions for on-demand positioning,…referring now to Figure 2, UE 200 may communicate with gNB 210 and/or with SMLC 220…although Figure 2 is discussed in the context of an SMLC, the inventive concepts may be applied to a positioning node, positioning server, and/or and E-SMLC…a positioning request 230 may be sent from SMLC 230 to UE 200…UE 200 may provide cell and/or beam information 235 to SMLC 220…a PRS order 240 may be sent from SMLC 220 to UE 200…PRS scheduling information 245 may be sent from gNB 210 to UE 200…a PRS transmission 250 may be sent from gNB 210 to UE 200…UE 200 may send a positioning measurement report 255, such as Received signal time difference (RSTD), to SMLC 220…UE 200 may send cell and/or beam updates 260 to gNB 210…a PRS transmission with new cells and/or beams 265 that have been updated may be sent from gNB 210 to UE 200… UE 200 may provide updated cell and/or beam information 270 to SMLC 220).”
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 user equipment (UE) of Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619) with the teaching of Priyanto et al. (‘310) for more accurate position determination (Priyanto et al. (‘310) – paragraph 3). In addition, both of the prior art references, (Sendonaris et al. (‘911), Moeglein et al. (‘934), White (‘619) and Priyanto et al. (‘310)) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as, determining geographical location or observable area of user equipment or mobile device.
Regarding claim 30, which is dependent on independent claim 24, and which is a corresponding method claim of device claim 15, Sendonaris et al. (‘911)/Moeglein et al. (‘934)/White (‘619)/Priyanto et al. (‘310) discloses all the claimed invention as shown above for claim 15.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bitra et al. (US 9,797,983 B1) describes An example of a method of operating a UE includes receiving, from a location server via a transceiver, first information about a first plurality of positioning signals expected to be transmitted by a first set of base stations…receiving, from a tile information server via the transceiver, second information about a second plurality of positioning signals expected to be transmitted by a second set of base stations, the second set of base stations including at least one additional base station not included in the first set of base stations…measuring a third plurality of positioning signals received via the transceiver from a combination of a first subset of the first set of base stations and a second subset of the second set of base stations, the third plurality of positioning signals including an additional positioning signal transmitted by the at least one additional base station…sending, via the transceiver, measurement results for the third plurality of positioning signals to the location server (column 1 lines 12-48).
Jones et al. (US 9,554,247 B2) describes one or more radio characteristics of the signal received from the Wi-Fi access point…the geographical area may have a radius on the order of at least tens of miles…the instructions executable by the data processor to derive the position information may include instructions to derive position information from a combination of newly-collected sets of data and previously-collected sets of data…the instructions executable by the data processor to derive the position information may include instructions to excludes sets of data with potential error from the sets of data from which the position information is derived…the software may further include instructions executable by the data processor to identify, as a group, sets of data that share a common identifier of a Wi-Fi access point; and perform clustering analysis of the sets of data of the identified group, and based on results of the analysis, designate one or more sets of data of the identified group as sets of data with potential error…the instructions to perform clustering analysis may include instructions executable by the data processor to determine a first centroid for the Wi-Fi access point based at least in part on the sets of data of the identified group; and designate a first set of data as a set of data with potential error if a comparison of a distance between the first centroid and the location data of the first set of data exceeds a threshold…the instructions to perform clustering analysis may include instructions executable by the data processor to determine a weighted centroid for the Wi-Fi access point based at least in part on the age of the location data of the sets of data of the identified group…designate a first set of data as a set of data with potential error if a comparison of a distance between the weighted centroid and the location data of the first set of data exceeds a threshold (column 7 lines 3-36).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NUZHAT PERVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9795. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, William J Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
/NUZHAT PERVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights