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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1,43,45 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant previously elected Species 1 (claims 1,43,45) and Sub-species a (claims 2-7,11-12,14,21-23,27-29,44) pursuant to the restriction/election requirement. Accordingly, claims 1-7,11,12,14,21-23,27-29,43-45 are the elected claims currently under examination, and claims 8-10,13,15-20,24-26,30-42,46-50 remain withdrawn from consideration as being directed to the non-elected inventions.
Examiner notes that Applicant's most recent amendment continues to present claims 8-10,13,15-20,24-26,30-42 without the proper withdrawn claim status identifier. Applicant is advised that the non-elected claims remain withdrawn from consideration and should be identified in the claim listing with the status identifier “(Withdrawn)” (or “(Withdrawn—Currently Amended)” for any withdrawn claim that is currently being amended).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1,2,3,5,6,7,11,12,14,21,22,23,27,29,43,44,45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoryaev et al. (WO 2020069083, hereinafter Khoryaev) in view of Opshaug et al. (US 20200145955, hereinafter Opshaug) in further view of Gloss et al. (EP 2854312, hereinafter Gloss) in further view of Bouttier et al. (US 20210409132, hereinafter Bouttier)
Regarding claim 1, Khoryaev discloses a transceiver for receiving a receive signal or a plurality of receive signals to be used for position determination, the transceiver comprising (Par. 18: Lines 1-3; Positioning reference signals (PRS) are used to measure the signal location parameters (SLP) for determining a UE location; Claim 1: The apparatus includes circuitry configured to transmit and receive RF signals (i.e. transceiver)):
a measurement unit configured to perform a measurement to detect an information on a first arriving path, the information comprises a time or a direction for the first arriving path (Par. 22: The first arriving paths (FAP) are processed to determine timing and angular information); and
a channel state analyzer configured to estimate a LOS channel condition to determine a channel state information describing the condition of the first arriving path (Par. 29: Lines 1-2; The UEs or base stations can classify LOS status or non-LOS status (LOS channel condition); Par. 30: Additional information of LOS state and information on confidence level of LOS state (channel state information) can be reported).
Khoryaev does not disclose the positioning determination is performed over multiple points of time.
Opshaug, however, discloses receiving a receive signal or the plurality of receive signals to be used for position determination over multiple points of time (Par. 98; The location of a mobile device can be determined by PRS occasions. By determining the position at multiple times, a more accurate position can be estimated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khoryaev’s channel-state based positioning to use receive signals over multiple points of time as taught by Opshaug, in order to improve the accuracy and robustness of the position determination.
Khoryaev in view of Opshaug does not expressly disclose wherein the channel state analyzer is configured to analyze a correlation profile of the receive signal or the plurality of receive signals over multiple points of time;
wherein the channel state analyzer is configured to perform a phase measurement of the receive signal or the plurality of receive signals (RSs) received at the multiple points of time; and
wherein the channel state analyzer is configured to determine the channel state information corresponding to a line of sight, LOS, state or corresponding to a non-line of sight, NLOS, state based on a proportional or discontinuous course of the phase measurement of the receive signal or the plurality of receive signals (RSs) over the multiple points of time.
Khoryaev in view of Opshaug does not expressly disclose wherein the channel state analyzer is configured to analyze a correlation profile of the receive signal or the plurality of receive signals over multiple points of time; wherein the channel state analyzer is configured to perform a phase measurement of the receive signal or the plurality of receive signals received at the multiple points of time; and wherein the channel state analyzer is configured to determine the channel state information corresponding to a LOS state or an NLOS state based on a proportional or discontinuous course of the phase measurement over the multiple points of time.
Gloss, however, teaches wherein the channel state analyzer is configured to analyze a correlation profile of the receive signal or the plurality of receive signals over multiple points of time (Par. 57: Lines 6-10; “a plurality of channel impulse response determinations may be made over time and the LOS measure LM is determined depending on a plurality of so obtained channel impulse responses”; Par. 63: Lines 1-2; “for determining the LOS measure, the receiver 10 ... observes a set of channel impulse responses (CIR) over time”; The plurality of channel impulse responses observed over time is mapped to the claimed correlation profile of the received signal over multiple points of time, because the CIRs provide successive profiles characterizing the received multipath channel at the respective observation times).
Gloss further teaches wherein the channel state analyzer is configured to perform a phase measurement of the receive signal or the plurality of receive signals received at the multiple points of time (Par. 65 Lines 12-18; “a tap can be interpreted as a superposition of different signal contributions with the same propagation delay but different phase angles”; a tap “can be described by a complex coefficient, where its amplitude/magnitude relates to the channel attenuation and its phase relates to the phase rotation of the channel”; Par. 67(c): Lines 11-16; “The time series of complex channel coefficients corresponding to the first tap is transformed into frequency domain”; The phase of each complex channel coefficient is mapped to the claimed phase measurement, and the time series of complex channel coefficients corresponding to the first tap provides those phase-bearing measurements over the claimed multiple points of time).
Gloss further teaches wherein the channel state analyzer is configured to determine the channel state information corresponding to a LOS state or an NLOS state based on a course of the phase measurement over the multiple points of time (Par. 67(c): Lines 11-21; “The time series of complex channel coefficients corresponding to the first tap is transformed into frequency domain”; “a LOS condition is present if a strong discrete Doppler component will occur”; “if an NLOS condition is more probable, a Doppler spread may be noticed”; The time series of complex coefficients corresponding to the first tap is mapped to the claimed course over time of the phase-bearing first-arriving-path measurements, and the different temporal behavior of that time series, namely a discrete Doppler component versus Doppler spread, is used to determine whether the channel corresponds to LOS or NLOS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the channel state analyzer of Khoryaev in view of Opshaug to analyze successive channel profiles and phase-bearing measurements associated with the first arriving path over multiple points of time and use the temporal behavior thereof to determine LOS/NLOS channel state information, as taught by Gloss, in order to provide an additional temporal channel characteristic for more reliably distinguishing LOS propagation from NLOS/multipath propagation.
Khoryaev in view of Opshaug and Gloss does not expressly disclose wherein the course of the phase measurement is a proportional or discontinuous course.
Bouttier, however, teaches a proportional course of the phase measurement over the multiple points of time (Par. 40: Lines 3-5; “perform a regression analysis on the processed complex signals and the plurality of time points”; Par. 40: Lines 17-19; “the regression analysis is performed on the phase component extracted from the processed complex signals”; Par. 40: Lines 19-21; “the ‘best fit’ line or curve is then applied to the plurality of time points so as to obtain the phase variation”; Par. 41: Lines 2-8; “applying a curve fitting algorithm to the processed complex signals, thereby generating a best-fit curve defining a variation of the phase component of the processed complex signals over time”; The phase component measured at the plurality of time points is fitted as a function of time, and the resulting best-fit line defining the phase variation over time is mapped to the claimed proportional course of the phase measurement).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the channel state analyzer of Khoryaev in view of Opshaug and Gloss to characterize the temporal phase measurements using a proportional phase course, as taught by Bouttier, in order to characterize and compensate predictable phase variation occurring over the measurement interval and thereby improve the reliability of the temporal channel analysis used for LOS/NLOS determination.
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1, Khoryaev discloses wherein the channel state analyzer configured to analyze a correlation profile of the receive signal or the plurality of receive signals, wherein the analyzing comprises:
extraction of a first information for the correlation profile at a first point of time (Par. 23: Lines 4-9 and Fig. 2; Channel input response (CIR) used six different paths; The positioning circuitry analyzes the CIR as a correlation profile of the received signal; Par. 22: Lines 1-3; FAP from three different base stations (different times) are used to determine UE location by measuring time, angular information, etc.; These parameters are represented from the first CIR peak); and
extraction of a second information for the correlation profile at a second point of time (Par. 23: Lines 4-9 and Fig. 2; Channel input response (CIR) used six different paths; The positioning circuitry analyzes the CIR as a correlation profile of the received signal; Par. 22: Lines 1-3; FAP from three different base stations (different times) are used to determine UE location by measuring time, angular information, etc.; CIR contains multiple paths at later time positions which correspond to a second set of information at a second point in time); and
extraction of a third information for the correlation profile at a third point of time;
wherein the channel state analyzer is configured to determine the channel state information based on a relationship of the first, second and third information with respect to each other (Par. 29: Lines 1-12; LOS vs non-LOS is estimation of FAP timing; The CIR gives FAP path timing and multipath structure).
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1, Khoryaev discloses wherein the receive signal or the plurality of receive signals comprises multiple frames (Par. 23: Lines 4-8; There are six different path in the CIR; A CIR estimate depends on multiple samples of the reference signal, meaning the UE has received multiple PRS reference occasions (i.e., multiple frames)) or is a periodic signal or a semi-persistent signal or a signal with a known time offset; and/or wherein the channel state analyzer is configured to perform the evaluation for further points of time (Par. 22: Lines 1-6; The FAP is analyzed for arrival path information; Par. 23: The UE collects information about other paths (further points in times). The CIR shows six different peaks (six different times) and uses this information to help determine location; The remaining limitations were given no patentable weight due to the optional language “or”).
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 1, Khoryaev discloses a transceiver receiving a plurality of receive signals (as detailed in the rejection of claim 1) but does not disclose wherein the receive signal or the plurality of receive signals is received along a movement of the transceiver for receiving the receive signal or the plurality of receive signals over the first, second and third point of time or along a movement of a transmitter outputting the receive signal or the plurality of receive signals over the first, second and third point of time.
Opshaug, however, discloses wherein the receive signal or the plurality of receive signals is received along a movement of the transceiver for receiving the receive signal (Par. 84; Bundled (i.e. consecutive) PRS occasions are received by a moving UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transceiver of Khoryaev to receive the plurality of positioning / reference signals while the UE is moving, over multiple consecutive PRS occasions corresponding to first, second, and third points in time as taught by Opshaug, in order to reduce motion-induced positioning error and improve OTDOA accuracy during a shorter positioning session—an expected and predictable improvement when applying known motion-robust PRS bundling techniques to the positioning transceiver of Khoryaev.
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 1, Khoryaev discloses wherein the channel state analyzer is configured to classify the receive signal or the plurality of receive signals as LOS state, NLOS state (Par. 29: Lines 1-2; the UE may classify LOS status or non-LOS status for different channels/links; Par. 29: Lines 9-12; LOS/NLOS classification is performed by the UE or gNB) or to classify the receive signal or the plurality of receive signals as LOS state, NLOS state, OLOS state; and/or to classify the receive signal or the plurality of receive signals as LOS state, NLOS state or MPC state (The remaining limitations were given no patentable weight due to the optional language “or”).
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 1, Khoryaev discloses wherein the information to be extracted refers to at least one of the group comprising:
magnitude of the FAP peak (Par. 38: Lines 2-4; The UE can use reference signals and estimate RX power carried by each detected multipath component of the CIR; Par. 39: RSRP/RSRP measurements are made for the FAP; The power of the FAP corresponds to the magnitude of the FAP peak; The remaining limitations are given no patentable weight due to the optional language “or”).
Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 1, Khoryaev discloses the transceiver according to claim 1, wherein the channel state analyzer is configured to detect a first arriving path (Par. 29: Lines 9-12; The UE or gNB determines LOS/NLOS by performing estimation of the first arrival path) and/or a time-position of the first arriving path at a first, second and third point of time (The remaining limitations were given no patentable weight due to the optimal language “or”).
Regarding claim 12 as applied to claim 1, Khoryaev discloses wherein the transceiver comprises a position determination entity configured to determine a position information based on an information regarding the first arriving path of the received signal (Par. 22; The UEs location can be determined by processing first arrival path information) or the plurality of receive signals taking into account the channel state information (The remaining limitations were given no patentable weight due to the optimal language “or”).
Regarding claim 14 as applied to claim 1, Khoryaev discloses wherein the channel state analyzer is configured to analyze the receive signal or the plurality of receive signals with regard to a confidence of the channel state (Par. 29: Lines 1-9; The classification of LOS/NLOS is associated with a confidence level) and/or with regard to a quality of the receive signal or the plurality of receive signals; and/or wherein a high amplitude and/or a sharp lobe indicates a high quality of the receive signal or the plurality of receive signals; and/or wherein a low amount of information for the correlation profile out of a general trend of all information for the correlation profile indicates a high confidence of the channel state (The remaining limitations were given no patentable weight due to the optimal language “or”).
Regarding claim 21 as applied to claim 1, Khoryaev discloses wherein the channel state analyzer is configured to perform an analysis of a correlation profile with respect to a phase and amplitude (Par. 23: Lines 4-9; The CIR is used to help determine the location of the UE; The CIR inherently carries amplitude and phase information as it is a complex valued function).
Regarding claim 22 as applied to claim 1, Khoryaev discloses wherein the channel state analyzer is configured to determine the LOS or NLOS channel state condition from a complex correlation at a measurement instant (Par. 23: Lines 4-9; The CIR is used to help determine the location of the UE; Par. 29: Lines 9-12; The FAP information is used to determine LOS/NLOS; The CIR is complex valued and is used to extract FAP information that is used to classify LOS/NLOS), comprising the substeps: Detecting the time of arrival of a first arriving path within the measurement instant (Par. 29: Lines 9-12; To determine LOS/NLOS classification, first arrival path timing is used; The remaining limitations were given no patentable weight due to the optimal language “or”).
Regarding claim 23 as applied to claim 1, Khoryaev discloses wherein the evaluation represents a complex correlation area; and/or wherein the evaluation represents a difference between a reference complex correlation and a reference complex correlation; and/or wherein the evaluation is performed on the more evaluation at multiple time instants (Par. 22: Lines 2-3; FAP information received by the UE come from three different base stations (different instances); Par. 23; Because the UE receives multiple signals, the CIR is analyzed multiple times; The remaining limitations were given no patentable weight due to the optimal language “or”).
Regarding claim 27 as applied to claim 1, Khoryaev discloses wherein the channel state analyzer is configured to derive one or more channel parameters and to compare the one or more channel parameters with an expected function or a value of the respective channel parameter, or a combination of multiple parameters (This limitation was given no patentable weight due to the optimal language “or”); or wherein the channel state analyzer is configured to derive one or more channel parameters and to compare the one or more channel parameters with an expected function or a value of the respective channel parameter (This limitation was given no patentable weight due to the optimal language “or”), or a combination of multiple parameters or wherein an expected function or value of the respective channel parameter is dependent on channel state (LOS, NLOS and OLOS) and the measurement or reference channel (Par. 29: Lines 9-14; LOS/NLOS classification is made by using FAP path timing and analyzing frequency flatness characteristics or measuring he power of the FAP; Classifying a signal into LOS/NLOS is done by comparing measured characteristics to specific parameters).
Regarding claim 29 as applied to claim 1, Khoryaev discloses the transceiver according to claim 1 being part of a user equipment (downlink) (Par. 10: Lines 3-4; Wireless communication devices may be UEs or base stations; Par. 11: Lines 1-5; Each device includes positioning circuitry that analyze receive signals and generate signals to determine location), or being part of TRPTRP (uplink) or being part of a user equipment (sidelink) communicating with another user equipment (The remaining limitations were given no patentable weight due to the optimal language “or”).
Regarding claim 43, Khoryaev discloses a channel state analysis comprising:
performing a measurements to detect an information of a first arriving path, advantageously a time or a direction for a first arriving path (Par. 22; FAP signals are post-processed for timing, timing difference, angular information, etc.); and
estimating a LOS channel condition to determine a channel state information describing the condition of the FAP (Par. 29: Lines 1-2; The different channels/links may be classified as LOS/NLOS; Par. 30; A report can be introduced to indicate additional information on LOS state and information on confidence level of LOS state).
Khoryaev does not disclose receiving a receive signal or the plurality of receive signals to be used for position determination over multiple points of time.
Opshaug, however, discloses receiving a receive signal or the plurality of receive signals to be used for position determination over multiple points of time (Par. 98; The location of a mobile device can be determined by PRS occasions. By determining the position at multiple times, a more accurate position can be estimated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Khoryaev’s channel-state based positioning to use receive signals over multiple points of time as taught by Opshaug, in order to improve the accuracy and robustness of the position determination.
Regarding claim 44 as applied to claim 43, the rejection of claim 2 addresses the limitations presented in claim 44. Therefore, the limitations of claim 44 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 45, the rejection of claim 43 addresses the limitations presented in claim 45. Therefore, the limitations of claim 45 have been addressed. A computer program is necessarily needed to perform the recited functions.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoryaev et al. (WO 2020069083, hereinafter Khoryaev) in view of Opshaug et al. (US 20200145955, hereinafter Opshaug) in further view of Gloss et al. (EP 2854312, hereinafter Gloss) in further view of Bouttier et al. (US 20210409132, hereinafter Bouttier) in further view of Manolakos et al. (WO 2020072171, hereinafter Manolakos)
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1, Opshaug discloses measuring of a signal over multi-points of time but Khoryaev in view of Opshaug in further view of Gloss in further view of Bouttier does not disclose wherein the multi-points of time are defined by at least one out of a group comprising the following:
a slot number of a radio frame,
a OFDM symbol number l, where l=0 corresponds to the first OFDM symbol of the SRS or PRS transmission,
or a OFDM symbol index l’ of the slot that corresponds to the first OFDM symbol of the SRS transmission in the given slot.
Manolakos, however, disclose a beam index of derived from a frame and slot (Par. 71: Lines 4-6; A beam index may be derived from a time of transmission, e.g., frame and slot; The remaining limitations were given no patentable weight due to the optional language “or”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the standard NR/LTE radio-frame timing structure of Manolakos (frame, slot, and OFDM symbol indices) to Khoryaev in view of Opshaug in further view of Gloss in further view of Bouttier’s multi-point-in-time measurements, as both references address time-indexed processing of positioning-related signals, and using the well-known frame/slot timing convention provides a predictable and consistent way to identify the measurement instants. Accordingly, defining the multi-points of time by a slot number of a radio frame or an OFDM symbol index would have been an obvious design choice.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoryaev et al. (WO 2020069083, hereinafter Khoryaev) in view of Opshaug et al. (US 20200145955, hereinafter Opshaug) in further view of Gloss et al. (EP 2854312, hereinafter Gloss) in further view of Bouttier et al. (US 20210409132, hereinafter Bouttier) in further view of Soriaga et el. (US 20200229010, hereinafter Soriaga)
Regarding claim 28 as applied to claim 1, Khoryaev in view of Opshaug in further view of Gloss in further view of Bouttier does not disclose wherein the transceiver is configured to receive from a network, base station or transmission point (TRP) a message comprising information to enable estimating the channels state.
Soriaga, however, discloses wherein the transceiver is configured to receive from a network, base station or transmission point (TRP) a message comprising information to enable estimating the channels state (Par. 72: Lines 1-13; The UE receives, from a base station, reference RF signals such as PRS and channel state information reference signals that contain information enabling the UE to identify LOS/shortest path).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transceiver of Khoryaev in view of Opshaug in further view of Gloss in further view of Bouttier to be further configured to receive, from the network/base station/TRP, reference signals carrying information for estimating channel state as taught by Soriaga, in order to improve the robustness and accuracy of channel-state/LOS determination and associated positioning, which is a predictable use of known reference-signal signaling for the same purpose in the same technical field.
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 FABIAN BOTELLO whose telephone number is (571)272-4439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/FABIAN BOTELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights