CTFR 18/059,913 CTFR 83830 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Art Unit- Location 05-03 AIA The Art Unit location of your application in the USPTO has changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Art Unit 2642 . Response to Amendment This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment/Arguments filed on 03/10/2026. Claims 1-18 and 25-34 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL. Claim Status Claims 1-18 and 25-34 are now pending in the present application. Claims 19-24 and 35-40 are Withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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: 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 6-8, 10-12, 15-18, 25-26, 28-29, 31 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Padaki US Patent No.:( US 11,343,646 B2 ) hereinafter referred as Padaki, in view of Lee et al US Patent Application No.:( US 2020/0236505 A1 ) hereinafter referred as Lee For claim 1, Padaki discloses a method of positioning a target node, comprising: identifying a set of candidate anchor nodes based on the target node ( column 16, lines 4-9 disclosing the measurements of the location of the target generated by the range measurements from the anchors available) ; identifying a set of candidate anchor locations based on location information of the target node, location information of the set of candidate anchor nodes, mobility capabilities of the set of candidate anchor nodes, or a combination thereof ( column 16, lines 19-30 disclosing the anchor candidate locations based on the location information) , instructing at least a subset of the set of candidate anchor nodes to move based on the set of candidate anchor locations ( column 17, lines 22-26 disclosing the measurements of the location of the target generated by the range measurements from the anchors available) . However, Padaki disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exemption of the configuring the set of candidate anchor nodes and the target node to engage in positioning operations at a positioning time to determine a position estimation of the target node as recited in claim 1 . Lee from the same or analogous art teaches the configuring the set of candidate anchor nodes and the target node to engage in positioning operations at a positioning time to determine a position estimation of the target node (fig. 3 ) (paragraph [0014], lines 1-9) . Therefore, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to use the configuring the set of candidate anchor nodes and the target node to engage in positioning operations at a positioning time to determine a position estimation of the target node as taught by Lee into the method and apparatus for localization of Padaki. The configuring the set of candidate anchor nodes and the target node to engage in positioning operations at a positioning time to determine a position estimation of the target node can be modify/implemented by combining the configuring the set of candidate anchor nodes and the target node to engage in positioning operations at a positioning time to determine a position estimation of the target node with the device. This process is implemented as a hardware solution or as firmware solutions of Lee into the method and apparatus for localization of Padaki. As disclosed in Lee , the motivation for the combination would be to use the configuration of the set of candidate anchor nodes and the target node to engage in positioning operations at a positioning time to determine a position estimation of the target node that will improve the position accuracy and better coverage becoming more efficient and reliable for a better communication. For claim 2, Padaki discloses the method, wherein the location information of the target node indicates a coarse location of the target node ( column 15, lines 64-67) and ( column 16, lines 1-6) . For claim 3, Padaki discloses the method, wherein the identifying the set of candidate anchor locations is based on a distribution pattern for improving a geometric dilution of precision (GDOP) of the position estimation of the target node ( column 40, lines 8-18) . For claim 6, Padaki discloses the method, wherein the identifying the set of candidate anchor locations comprises: identifying a first region that encompasses a first cluster of the set of candidate anchor nodes ( column 40, lines 19-25) ; Identifying a second region that encompasses a second cluster of the set of candidate anchor nodes; and identifying one of the set of candidate anchor locations that is between the first region and the second region ( column 26, lines 61-64) . For claim 7, Padaki discloses the method, further comprising: updating the set of candidate anchor nodes based on at least the identified one of the set of candidate anchor locations that is between the first region and the second region ( column 40, lines 19-25) . For claim 8, Padaki discloses the method, wherein the identifying the set of candidate anchor locations comprises: identifying one of the set of candidate anchor nodes that has no line-of-sight path to the target node ( column 1, lines 43-55) ; and identifying one of the set of candidate anchor locations based on the mobility capability of the one of the set of candidate anchor nodes, the identified one of the candidate anchor locations has a line-of-sight path to the target node ( column 23, lines 33-43) . For claim 10, Padaki discloses the method, wherein the identifying the set of candidate anchor locations is performed based on an estimated geometric dilution of precision (GDOP) of the position estimation of the target node, node types of the set of candidate anchor nodes, a network topology of the set of candidate anchor nodes, a line-of-sight condition, or a combination thereof ( column 40, lines 8-18) . For claim 11, Padaki discloses the method, wherein the identifying the set of candidate anchor nodes is performed based on one or more last recorded positions of the target node, one or more established communication connections with the target node, one or more signal strengths of signals measured by the target node, an estimated geometric dilution of precision (GDOP) of the position estimation of the target node, node types of the set of candidate anchor nodes, node capabilities of the set of candidate anchor nodes, or a combination thereof ( column 41, lines 49-60) . For claim 12, Padaki discloses the method, wherein the identifying the set of candidate anchor nodes is performed based on one or more suggested anchor nodes provided by the target node ( column 26, lines 34-44) . For claim 15, Padaki discloses the method, wherein the configuring the set of candidate anchor nodes and the target node to engage in the positioning operations at the positioning time to determine the position estimation of the target node comprises: configuring the target node to transmit first measurement reports to a server or at least one anchor node of the set of candidate anchor nodes to transmit second measurement reports to the server, wherein at least one measurement report of the first measurement reports or the second measurement reports includes a timestamp, information about a position of the target node or an anchor node that is involved in a reported measurement included in the at least one measurement report, or both ( column 15, lines 38-43) and ( column 20, lines 27-37) . For claim 16, Padaki discloses the method, further comprising: receiving, from the target node or at least one anchor node of the set of candidate anchor nodes, measurement reports including measurements of wireless signals between the target node and the at least one anchor node of the set of candidate anchor nodes ( column 29, lines 10-27) ; and determining position estimation of the target node based, at least in part, on the measurement reports ( column 30, lines 28-38) . For claim 17, Padaki discloses the method, wherein: the set of candidate anchor locations includes a plurality of anchor locations that at least one anchor node of the set of candidate anchor nodes is to be placed at different time points ( column 16, lines 7-23) . For claim 18, Padaki discloses the method, 18. (Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining two or more relative positions of the target node, wherein each position of the two or more relative positions is relative to a previous position of the two or more relative positions ( column 22, lines 7-23) , wherein the position estimation of the target node is based on ranging measurements, angle measurements, timing measurements, or a combination thereof, between the target node and one or more anchor nodes, the two or more relative positions, and known locations of the one or more anchor nodes ( column 16, lines 40-44) and ( column 21, lines 46-54) . For claim 25, Padaki discloses an apparatus for positioning a target node, comprising: a memory (230 fig 2) ; at least one transceiver (210 fig 2) ; and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory and the at least one transceiver (225 fig 2) , the at least one processor configured to: identify a set of candidate anchor nodes based on the target node ( column 16, lines 4-9 disclosing the measurements of the location of the target generated by the range measurements from the anchors available) ;; identify a set of candidate anchor locations based on location information of the target node, location information of the set of candidate anchor nodes, mobility capabilities of the set of candidate anchor nodes, or a combination thereof ( column 16, lines 19-30 disclosing the anchor candidate based on the location information) ; instruct at least a subset of the set of candidate anchor nodes to move based on the set of candidate anchor locations ( column 17, lines 22-26 disclosing the measurements of the location of the target generated by the range measurements from the anchors available) . However, Padaki disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exemption of the configure the set of candidate anchor nodes and the target node to engage in positioning operations at a positioning time to determine a position estimation of the target node as recited in claim 25 . Lee from the same or analogous art teaches the configure the set of candidate anchor nodes and the target node to engage in positioning operations at a positioning time to determine a position estimation of the target node (fig. 3 ) (paragraph [0014], lines 1-9) . Therefore, it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to use the configure the set of candidate anchor nodes and the target node to engage in positioning operations at a positioning time to determine a position estimation of the target node as taught by Lee into the method and apparatus for localization of Padaki. The configure the set of candidate anchor nodes and the target node to engage in positioning operations at a positioning time to determine a position estimation of the target node can be modify/implemented by combining the configure the set of candidate anchor nodes and the target node to engage in positioning operations at a positioning time to determine a position estimation of the target node with the device. This process is implemented as a hardware solution or as firmware solutions of Lee into the method and apparatus for localization of Padaki. As disclosed in Lee , the motivation for the combination would be to use the configuration of the set of candidate anchor nodes and the target node to engage in positioning operations at a positioning time to determine a position estimation of the target node that will improve the position accuracy and better coverage becoming more efficient and reliable for a better communication. For claim 26, Padaki discloses the apparatus, wherein the set of candidate anchor locations is identified based on a distribution pattern for improving a geometric dilution of precision (GDOP) of the position estimation of the target node ( column 40, lines 8-18) . For claim 28, Padaki discloses the apparatus, wherein the at least one processor configured to identify the set of candidate anchor locations comprises the at least one processor configured to: identify a first region that encompasses a first cluster of the set of candidate anchor nodes ( column 40, lines 19-25) ; identify a second region that encompasses a second cluster of the set of candidate anchor nodes; and identify one of the set of candidate anchor locations that is between the first region and the second region ( column 26, lines 61-64) . For claim 29, Padaki discloses the apparatus, wherein the at least one processor configured to identify the set of candidate anchor locations comprises the at least one processor configured to: identify one of the set of candidate anchor nodes that has no line-of-sight path to the target node ( column 1, lines 43-55) ; and identify one of the set of candidate anchor locations based on the mobility capability of the one of the set of candidate anchor nodes, the identified one of the candidate anchor locations has a line-of-sight path to the target node ( column 23, lines 33-43) . For claim 31, Padaki discloses the apparatus, wherein the set of candidate anchor nodes is identified based on one or more suggested anchor nodes provided by the target node ( column 26, lines 34-44) . For claim 33, Padaki discloses the apparatus, wherein the set of candidate anchor locations is identified based on an estimated geometric dilution of precision (GDOP) of the position estimation of the target node, node types of the set of candidate anchor nodes, a network topology of the set of candidate anchor nodes, a line-of-sight condition, or a combination thereof ( column 40, lines 8-18) . For claim 34, Padaki discloses the apparatus, wherein the set of candidate anchor nodes is identified based on one or more last recorded positions of the target node, one or more established communication connections with the target node, one or more signal strengths of signals measured by the target node, an estimated geometric dilution of precision (GDOP) of the position estimation of the target node, node types of the set of candidate anchor nodes, node capabilities of the set of candidate anchor nodes, or a combination thereof ( column 41, lines 49-60) . Allowable Subject Matter 07-43 Claims 4-5, 9, 13-14, 27, 30, 32 are objected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed on 03/10/2026, with respect to claims 1 and 25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner’s Notes The Applicant states that “Using range measurements from the anchors for localization of the target device is not the same and is very different from instructing at least a subset of the set of candidate anchor nodes to move based on the set of candidate anchor locations.” While not the basis of the rejection, it is respectfully noted that the Applicant does not provide any reasons pertaining to the argued difference argued. Further, an instruction to move is not motion of the anchor. It is not clear from the claim language in view of the arguments submitted by Applicant whether the instruction to move means a handoff or physically moving to a closer or a farther candidate location. In other words, it’s not clear whether the decision is based on distance from the anchor node. The Applicant argues that there is no disclosure or suggestion by Padaki that the central unit instructs any anchor to move based on the anchor location. There is simply no instruction from the central unit or the target device instructing any anchor to move. Further, Applicant states that “Padaki mentions on-device localization using range measurements from the anchors and such localization methods can also be executed at the anchors or at a central unit controlling the anchors. Using range measurements from the anchors for localization of the target device is not the same and is very different from instructing at least a subset of the set of candidate anchor nodes to move based on the set of candidate anchor locations. Padaki does not disclose or suggest that any anchor or any subset of the anchors is instructed to move based on the locations of the anchors.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s interpretation of the pending claims in view of the specification of the instant application and the prior art presented. Applicant’s Definition of “based on the set of anchor location” In paragraph 126 of the instant application, the Applicant states that “In some aspects, the set of candidate anchor locations may be identified based on an estimated GDOP of the position estimation of the one or more target nodes, node types of the set of candidate anchor nodes, a network topology of the set of candidate anchor nodes, a line-of-sight (LOS) condition, or a combination thereof. In some aspects, the location information of the one or more target nodes may indicate a coarse location (e.g., a general area based on established communication with a base station or based on a previously determined positioning estimation) of the one or more target nodes. In some aspects, the location information of the candidate anchor nodes may indicate coarse locations thereof based on UE reports indicating the presence and/or relative position estimations of the other UEs.” However, the claims do not include such language. Further, the Applicant states that “Using range measurements from the anchors for localization of the target device is not the same and is very different from instructing at least a subset of the set of candidate anchor nodes to move based on the set of candidate anchor locations.” However, the Applicant does not state the reasons pertaining to the difference argued. In addition, the range measurements, per se, is not being read as an instruction to move. Instruction To Move As has been previously indicated in the non-final action, and Applicant noted, Padaki shows that “self-localizable mobile devices are considered and methods for performing the on-device localization using the range measurements from the anchors are described. Other types of measurements, such as time difference of arrival, angle of arrive, time of arrival can also be applied with our framework with straightforward modifications. The localization methods can also be executed at the anchors or at a central unit controlling the anchors. The mobile device (also called the target or tag) is assumed to move in a region 3 that defines the kinematic region of interest for this problem. The region R may have boundaries defined in terms of bounds on spatial coordinates." (Padaki, Col. 17, lines 16-27). Further, Padaki shows that “a cell or grid based localization method is introduced which takes ranging measurements and anchor location as inputs and generates the location of the target in terms of the cell or the state of the target with a certain confidence measure ( Read as instruction to move ).” See Padaki (column 16, lines 19-23). Also, Padaki discloses the anchor selection procedure can be triggered when the estimation accuracy of the current set of anchors is worse than a certain threshold. This can occur due to the movement of the tag , or in case of mobile/portable anchors, movement of one or more anchors column 28, lines 42-46. Therefore the instructions of the movement are based on a trigger which represents the instructions. The prior art should be considered as a whole. See also MPEP § 2141.02 [R-5] Paragraph VI. Claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation during examination and limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim (See M.P.E.P. 2111 [R-l]). Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH AREVALO whose telephone number is (571)270-3121 . The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00 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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on (571)272-7915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JOSEPH AREVALO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642 Application/Control Number: 18/059,913 Page 2 Art Unit: 2642 Application/Control Number: 18/059,913 Page 3 Art Unit: 2642 Application/Control Number: 18/059,913 Page 4 Art Unit: 2642 Application/Control Number: 18/059,913 Page 5 Art Unit: 2642 Application/Control Number: 18/059,913 Page 6 Art Unit: 2642 Application/Control Number: 18/059,913 Page 7 Art Unit: 2642 Application/Control Number: 18/059,913 Page 8 Art Unit: 2642 Application/Control Number: 18/059,913 Page 9 Art Unit: 2642 Application/Control Number: 18/059,913 Page 10 Art Unit: 2642 Application/Control Number: 18/059,913 Page 11 Art Unit: 2642
Prosecution Insights