DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed 11/19/2025, are accepted and appreciated by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered. With regards to the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) Rejection Applicant argues “n items” typically refers to a number of items. However the claim does not define the limitation and is therefore indefinite. Examiner notes that the claims recite “n” in multiple locations and therefore it is not clear if n is the same n or not and is therefore unclear. With regards to the 35 U.S.C. §103, Applicant argues “the mobile device of Edge cannot correspond to the claimed transmitter, because there would be no need for the mobile device of Edge to "transmit" the reference value to itself and there is no disclosure in Edge for the mobile device 102 to transmit weather reference data to another mobile device.” Examiner notes that a cellular element is interpreted as any data related to cellular data. Edge teaches “then at block 208, mobile device 102 may obtain a measurement of local atmospheric pressure using an environmental sensor (or more than one environmental sensor) provisioned with mobile device 102. And Figures 1-2 show “By way of example, a signal from transmitter 110a to the receiver 120 may follow a pathway 113a that travels around an object (e.g., object 190a, which blocks a "line-of-sight" pathway 111a between transmitter 110a and the receiver 120). By comparison, the signal pathway 113b from transmitter 110b to the receiver 120 is the unobstructed, and the signal pathway 113c from transmitter 110c to the receiver 120 propagates among various obstructions.”, and thus Edge teaches the transmitting the reference value from a transmitter of the transmitter network to a mobile device. Applicant further argues “Additionally, any reference data from a weather station would necessarily not meet a proximity condition relative to the environmental sensor associated with the mobile device. However Fig 2D teaches “One purpose of the reference vicinity of interest 271 may be to identify reference locations of interest for use in computing other (and potentially improved) position estimates. As shown, reference locations 180a-c are within the distance of interest 275 from the initial estimate 121i, while other reference locations 180d-n fall outside of the reference vicinity of interest 271. As is discussed in further detail herein, reference locations that fall within the reference vicinity of interest 271 may be selected due to their proximity to the receiver 120 based on the initial estimate 121i.”, and therefore Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 12 recites “selecting only reference data from the nearest n weather stations to part of the cellular element.”. However it is not clear what “n” is referring and is therefore indefinite. Furthermore it is not clear what “to part of the cellular element” means and is therefore indefinite. Claim 17 recites from m received reference pressure values, the n most-recently determined reference pressure values, wherein m is greater than n, and wherein the n reference pressure values include the reference pressure value received from the transmitter; It is not clear what “m” and “n” are referring and are therefore indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4,11-12, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge (US 2014/0135040 A1). With respect to Claim 1 Edge teaches A method comprising (See Abstract): determining a cellular element associated with a transmitter of a transmitter network (See Para[0059] At example block 206, mobile device 102 may determine whether it needs to determine its altitude but is unable to do so without making use of reference data report 114. If the output of this determination is yes, then at block 208, mobile device 102 may obtain a measurement of local atmospheric pressure using an environmental sensor (or more than one environmental sensor) provisioned with mobile device 102. As previously mentioned, by way of example, in certain instances an environmental sensor may comprise a barometer, a thermometer, a hygrometer, etc. Mobile device 102 may then also determine its horizontal location either accurately or approximately (e.g. based on a location for its serving cell in the case of an approximate location) and determine whether this location is within any pressure validity area for the reference data report 114); selecting reference data from one or more weather stations, wherein the reference data meets a proximity condition relative to the cellular element (See Para[0023] Existing standard positioning methods for mobile wireless devices such as A-GNSS, OTDOA, AFLT and E-CID typically operate by coupling a location server to a mobile device whose location is needed. The location server may then provide assistance data to the mobile device to direct and enable the mobile device to make appropriate measurements of radio signals from sources such as GNSS satellites (e.g. satellites for the US Global Positioning System (GPS), European Galileo system or Russian GLONASS system) and/or network base stations and access points. The mobile device may subsequently return the measurements to the location server for computation of a location estimate or the mobile device may compute a location estimate itself with the help, in some cases, of more assistance data from the location server. The location server is typically part of or reachable from some serving wireless network or a home wireless network for the mobile device. One example of a location server is a Secure User Plane Location (SUPL) Location Platform (SLP) that has been defined for the SUPL location solution by the Open Mobile Alliance (OMA). Another example is an Enhanced Serving Mobile Location Center (E-SMLC) that has been defined by an organization known as the 3.sup.rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) for locating a mobile device that is accessing a network using the Long Term Evolution (LTE) radio technology. For these location servers and other servers, positioning of a mobile device may take place by first establishing a positioning session between the location server and mobile device and using a positioning protocol to convey assistance data from the location server to the mobile device and to convey measurements or a location estimate from the mobile device to the location server. An example of a positioning protocol applicable to LTE radio access is the LTE Positioning Protocol (LPP) defined in publicly available documents by 3GPP. An example of a positioning protocol applicable to both LTE and other radio technologies is the LPP Extensions (LPPe) protocol defined in publicly available documents from OMA. LPPe is defined to operate in conjunction with LPP such that an LPPe message is normally embedded within an LPP message with the combined message referred to as an LPP/LPPe message and the combined protocol referred to as LPP/LPPe); transmitting the reference value from a transmitter of the transmitter network to a mobile device. (See Para[0059] If these conditions are fulfilled or if reference data report 114 is otherwise considered by mobile device 102 to be unconditionally reliable (e.g. because remote device 110 took into account the location of mobile device 102 and the current time when assembling reference data report 114), then at example block 210, mobile device 102 may use reference data report 114 to determine its altitude based, at least in part, on the measured local atmospheric pressure and a reference atmospheric pressure obtained via reference data report 114. Mobile device 102 may also store the reference data report 114 for later use--e.g. to determine its altitude at some later time.) However Edge is silent to the language of using the selected reference data to determine a reference value; and Nevertheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because Edge teaches Other sensors in the mobile device such as a thermometer, light sensor or meter may be used to obtain other data concerning the local environment See Para[0006]. Therefore using the proper reference data would lead to using the proper corresponding value and thus improve accuracy.
With respect to Claim 2 Edge teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising: calibrating a barometric pressure sensor of the mobile device using the reference value. (See Fig. 2) With respect to Claim 3 Edge teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising: estimating an altitude of the mobile device using the reference value. (See Para[0006] With respect to Claim 4 Edge The method of claim 1, further comprising: after transmitting the reference value, determining that a broadcast is scheduled at a first time; and (See Fig. 3) in response to the broadcast being scheduled at the first time: (See Fig. 3) selecting new reference data from the one or more weather stations; (See Fig. 3) using the new reference data to determine a new reference value; and (See Fig. 3) transmitting the new reference value from the transmitter to the mobile device or another mobile device. (See Fig. 3) With respect to Claim 11 Edge teaches The method of claim 1, wherein selecting the reference data further comprises: selecting only reference data from each weather station within the cellular element or within a threshold distance from part of the cellular element. (See Fig .1) With respect to Claim 12 Edge teaches The method of claim 1, wherein selecting the reference data further comprises: selecting only reference data from the nearest n weather stations to part of the cellular element. (See Fig. 1) With respect to Claim 19 Edge teaches One or more non-transitory machine-readable media embodying program instructions that, when executed by one or more machines, cause the one or more machines to implement the method of claim 1. (See claim 1 above) With respect to Claim 20 Edge teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the cellular element is a location of the transmitter, a coverage area of the transmitter, a cell sector of the transmitter, or a beam of the transmitter. (See Fig 1)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge (US 2014/0135040 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rodriguez (US 2015/0126234 A1).
With respect to Claim 13 Edge is silent to the language of The method of claim 1, wherein selecting the reference data further comprises: in addition to the proximity condition, selecting only reference data with an age that is below a threshold age value, selecting only the n most-recently provided reference data, selecting only reference data with a quality that is above a threshold quality value,or selecting only the n highest-quality reference data. Nevertheless Rodriguez teaches wherein selecting the reference data further comprises: in addition to the proximity condition, selecting only reference data with an age that is below a threshold age value, selecting only the n most-recently provided reference data, selecting only reference data with a quality that is above a threshold quality value,or selecting only the n highest-quality reference data. (See Para[0115]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Edge wherein in addition to the proximity condition, selecting only the n most-recently provided reference data, such as that of Rodriguez. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Edge, because selecting recent data would improve accuracy.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge (US 2014/0135040 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sendonaris (US 2013/0271324 A1).
With respect to Claim 14 Edge is silent to the language of The method of claim 1, wherein if none of the reference data meet the proximity condition, the method comprises: determining a new cellular element; and selecting second reference data that meet the proximity condition relative to the new cellular element. Nevertheless Sendonaris teaches wherein if none of the reference data meet the proximity condition, the method comprises: determining a new cellular element; and selecting second reference data that meet the proximity condition relative to the new cellular element (See Fig 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Edge and determine a new cellular element; and selecting second reference data that meet the proximity condition relative to the new cellular element such as that of Sendonaris. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Edge, because such steps would ensure that accurate data is utilized for accurate results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10, 15, 16, 18 are objected to 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.
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00-7:00.
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, Rastovski, Catherine can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
YOSHIHISA . ISHIZUKA
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights