DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The office acknowledges receipt of the following items(s) from the applicant: Information
Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 12/16/2025. The references have been
considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on Vanduren and the rejection of dependent claims under 35 U.S.C 103, the applicant states that the prior art does not disclose or suggest “Communicating comprises exchanging positioning capability information with the plurality of mobile devices,” and “a validator device configured to determine a validated position estimate”, as recited by independent claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the art rejection.
With regard to the above limitation regarding the exchange of positioning capability information, Vanduren discloses “The AMF 115 may serve as a control node that processes signaling between the UE 105 and the core network 140, and may provide QoS (Quality of Service) flow and session management” in paragraph [0077]. QoS flow directly impacts the ability of the plurality of UE’s ([0072]) to position and necessary requires the exchange of signal quality information. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “positioning capability information” encompasses information pertaining to the ability of the plurality of mobile devices to position, which includes QoS flow information. Paragraphs [0064], [0066], and [0069] of Vanduren further clarify that the primary UE is coupled to and in communication with a plurality of secondary UEs. This communication includes the exchange of QoS flow information. The Examiner maintains that the prior art discloses “Communicating comprises exchanging positioning capability information with the plurality of mobile devices,” as recited by claim 1.
With regard to the above limitation regarding a validator device, Vanduren discloses “verifying the presence of the first UE in the transaction region in response to determining that the first information corresponds to the second UE and the second information corresponds to the first UE” in paragraph [0036]. Paragraphs [0150-0152] clarify the above method of position verification, specifically disclosing in paragraph [0150] “The system 100 may use information shared between neighbor UEs to confirm the location of a UE at a particular time (e.g., a point in time or within a time window).” Paragraph [0184] further discloses using multiple positioning types to verify a at a particular time. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “determine a validated position estimate” encompasses both position verification between devices and verification across multiple positioning methods. The Examiner maintains that the prior art discloses the above limitation.
The Applicant is respectfully reminded that it is for the applicant’s benefit that portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited in order 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10, 12-14, 17, 19-22, and 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by VANDUREN(US20210127292A1).
Regarding claim 1, VANDUREN discloses
A method of providing location determination, the method performed at a first mobile device and comprising: communicating with a plurality of mobile devices to form a positioning group (“One or more of a group of UEs” [0072]), wherein the communicating comprises exchanging positioning capability information with the plurality of mobile devices (“The UE 105 may be configured to connect indirectly to one or more communication networks via one or more device-to-device (D2D) peer-to-peer (P2P) links” [0072], “The AMF 115 […] may provide QoS (Quality of Service) flow and session management”, & [0077] Paragraphs [0064], [0066], and [0069] of Vanduren further clarify that the primary UE is coupled to and in communication with a plurality of secondary UEs. This communication includes the exchange of QoS flow information. ), and wherein the positioning group comprises: a leader (“ The UE 500 may be configured to act as a “leader” and aggregate information from one or more other UEs” [0133]) device configured to determine an initial position estimate (“the UE 105 may obtain location measurements” [0080]), a validator device (verifying the presence of the first UE in the transaction region in response to determining that the first information corresponds to the second UE and the second information corresponds to the first UE” in paragraph [0036]) configured to determine a validated position estimate (“The system 100 may use information shared between neighbor UEs to confirm the location of a UE at a particular time (e.g., a point in time or within a time window)” [0150] & Paragraph [0184] further discloses using multiple positioning types to verify a position at a particular time.), and one or more other devices different than the leader device and the validator device (“Specifically, although only one UE 105 is illustrated, many UEs (e.g., hundreds, thousands, millions, etc.) may be utilized in the communication system 100” [0066]); and sending an estimated position of the first mobile device to a monitoring device (“With a UE-assisted position method, the UE 105 may obtain location measurements and send the measurements to a location server (e.g., the LMF 120)” [0080]), the estimated position of the first mobile device based at least in part on the initial position estimate, the validated position estimate, or both (“one or more of the storing and comparing functions (or portions thereof) for confirming location of the UE 500 may be performed by one or more other devices, e.g., one or more other RSEs and/or one or more back-end devices such as the server 400.” [0152])
Regarding claim 2, VANDUREN discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein communicating with the plurality of mobile devices to form the positioning group comprises determining relative positions of the first mobile device, each mobile device in the plurality of mobile devices, or both (“A location of the UE 105 may be expressed as a relative location” [0071] & “The UE 105 may include a single entity or may include multiple entities” [0071]).
Regarding claim 3, VANDUREN discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein communicating with the plurality of mobile devices is based on sidelink signaling (“The UEs 105, 106 may communicate with each other through UE-to-UE sidelink (SL) communications” [0069]).
Regarding claim 4, VANDUREN discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the leader device and the validator device are respectively selected as the leader device and the validator device of the positioning group based at least in part on respective positioning capabilities of the leader device and the validator device (“(be they for 5G technology and/or for one or more other communication technologies and/or protocols) may be used to transmit (or broadcast) directional synchronization signals, receive and measure directional signals at UEs […] (via the GMLC 125 or other location server)” [0045])
Regarding claim 6, VANDUREN discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the first mobile device comprises the leader device (“the UE 500 may be configured to act as a “leader” and aggregate information from one or more other UEs” [0133]), the method further comprising: attempting to determine the initial position estimate (“The position device (PD) 219 may be configured to determine a position of the UE 200,” [0099]); sending, to the validator device, a result of the attempt to determine the initial position estimate (“For example, the UE 500 may share information with the UE 705 and the UE 705 may share information with the UE 500, and this shared information may be compared to confirm that the UE 500 was in communication range of the UE 705,” [0150]); and receiving a validated position estimate from the validator device (“The information collected from other UEs may be reported by the UE 500 for use in confirming the location of the UE 500” [0152]).
Regarding claim 10, VANDUREN discloses
The method of claim 6, further comprising attempting to determine the initial position estimate responsive to receiving a position request from the one or more other devices (“The GMLC 125 may support a location request for the UE 105 received from the external client 130” [0078]).
Regarding claim 12, VANDUREN discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the first mobile device comprises the leader device, the method further comprising: attempting to determine the initial position estimate (“The position device (PD) 219 may be configured to determine a position of the UE 200,” [0099]); sending, to a location server, a result of the attempt to determine the initial position estimate (“With a UE-assisted position method, the UE 105 may obtain location measurements and send the measurements to a location server” [0080]); and receiving a validated position estimate (“The information collected from other UEs may be reported by the UE 500 for use in confirming the location of the UE 500” [0152]).
Regarding claim 13, VANDUREN discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the first mobile device comprises the leader device, and wherein, to determine the initial position estimate, the leader device is configured to conduct a positioning session with a location server (“ With a UE-assisted position method, the UE 105 may obtain location measurements and send the measurements to a location server (e.g., the LMF 120) for computation of a location estimate for the UE 105.” [0080]).
Regarding claim 14, VANDUREN discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the first mobile device comprises the validator device, the method further comprising: receiving, from the leader device, a result of an attempt to determine the initial position estimate (“With a UE-assisted position method, the UE 105 may obtain location measurements and send the measurements to a location server” [0080]); determining the validated position estimate (“The system 100 may use information shared between neighbor UEs to confirm the location of a UE at a particular time “ [0150]); and sending the validated position estimate to the leader device, the one or more other devices, or a combination thereof (“The information collected from other UEs may be reported by the UE 500 for use in confirming the location of the UE 500” [0152]).
Regarding claim 17, VANDUREN discloses
The method of claim 14, wherein determining the validated position estimate comprises conducting a positioning session with a location server (“ With a UE-assisted position method, the UE 105 may obtain location measurements and send the measurements to a location server (e.g., the LMF 120) for computation of a location estimate for the UE 105.” [0080]).
Regarding claim 19, VANDUREN discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the first mobile device comprises one of the one or more other devices (“The UE 105 may include a single entity or may include multiple entities” [0071]), and the method comprising sending a position request to the leader device, the validator device, or both (“GMLC 125 may support a location request for the UE 105 received from the external client 130 “ [0078]).
Regarding claim 20, VANDUREN discloses
The method of claim 19, wherein sending the position request: occurs prior to an attempt to determine the initial position estimate by the leader device (“A location response from the LMF 120 (e.g., containing a location estimate for the UE 105) may be returned to the GMLC 125 “ [0078]), or is responsive to receiving a request for the position of the first mobile device from the monitoring device (“he GMLC 125 may support a location request for the UE 105 received from the external client 130” [0078]).
Regarding claim 21, VANDUREN discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein communicating with the plurality of mobile devices to form the positioning group comprises determining a relative position of the first mobile device relative to the leader device, the validator device, or both, (“ location of the UE 105 may be expressed as a relative location comprising, for example, a distance and direction from a known location” [0071]) wherein the estimated position of the first mobile device is based at least in part on the relative position of the first mobile device (“The relative location may be expressed as relative coordinates (e.g., X, Y (and Z) coordinates) defined relative to some origin at a known location” [0071]).
Regarding claim 22, VANDUREN discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the monitoring device comprises a location server (“The UE 105 may obtain location measurements and send the measurements to a location server” [0080]).
Regarding claim 26, VANDUREN discloses
A first mobile device comprising: a transceiver (“a transceiver 215” [0088]); a memory (“the memory 211” [0088]); and one or more processors communicatively coupled with the transceiver and the memory (“The processor 210” [0088]), wherein the one or more processors are configured to: communicate with a plurality of mobile devices, via the transceiver, to form a positioning group, wherein the communicating comprises exchanging positioning capability information with the plurality of mobile devices (“The UE 105 may be configured to connect indirectly to one or more communication networks via one or more device-to-device (D2D) peer-to-peer (P2P) links” [0072]), and wherein the positioning group comprises: a leader device configured to determine an initial position estimate (“ The UE 500 may be configured to act as a “leader” and aggregate information from one or more other UEs” [0133]), a validator device configured to determine a validated position estimate (“The system 100 may use information shared between neighbor UEs to confirm the location of a UE at a particular time (e.g., a point in time or within a time window)” [0150]), and one or more other devices different than the leader device and the validator device (“Specifically, although only one UE 105 is illustrated, many UEs (e.g., hundreds, thousands, millions, etc.) may be utilized in the communication system 100” [0066]); and send an estimated position of the first mobile device to a monitoring device via the transceiver (“With a UE-assisted position method, the UE 105 may obtain location measurements and send the measurements to a location server (e.g., the LMF 120)” [0080]), the estimated position of the first mobile device based at least in part on the initial position estimate, the validated position estimate, or both (“one or more of the storing and comparing functions (or portions thereof) for confirming location of the UE 500 may be performed by one or more other devices, e.g., one or more other RSEs and/or one or more back-end devices such as the server 400.” [0152]).
Regarding claim 27, VANDUREN discloses
The first mobile device of claim 26, wherein, to communicate with the plurality of mobile devices to form the positioning group, the one or more processors are configured to determine relative positions of the first mobile device, each mobile device in the plurality of mobile devices, or both (“A location of the UE 105 may be expressed as a relative location” [0071] & “The UE 105 may include a single entity or may include multiple entities” [0071]).
Regarding claim 28, VANDUREN discloses
The first mobile device of claim 26, wherein, when the first mobile device is selected as the leader device (“the UE 500 may be configured to act as a “leader” and aggregate information from one or more other UEs” [0133]), the one or more processors are configured to: attempt to determine the initial position estimate (“The position device (PD) 219 may be configured to determine a position of the UE 200,” [0099]); send, to the validator device or a location server, a result of the attempt to determine the initial position estimate (“For example, the UE 500 may share information with the UE 705 and the UE 705 may share information with the UE 500, and this shared information may be compared to confirm that the UE 500 was in communication range of the UE 705,” [0150]); and receive a validated position estimate from the validator device (“The information collected from other UEs may be reported by the UE 500 for use in confirming the location of the UE 500” [0152]).
Regarding claim 29, VANDUREN discloses
The first mobile device of claim 26, wherein, when the first mobile device is selected as the validator device, the one or more processors are configured to: receive, from the leader device, a result of an attempt to determine the initial position estimate (“With a UE-assisted position method, the UE 105 may obtain location measurements and send the measurements to a location server” [0080]);; determine the validated position estimate (“The system 100 may use information shared between neighbor UEs to confirm the location of a UE at a particular time “ [0150]); and send the validated position estimate to the leader device, the one or more other devices, or a combination thereof (“The information collected from other UEs may be reported by the UE 500 for use in confirming the location of the UE 500” [0152]).
Regarding claim 30, VANDUREN discloses
The first mobile device of claim 29, wherein, to determine the validated position estimate, the one or more processors are configured to conduct a positioning session with a location server (“ With a UE-assisted position method, the UE 105 may obtain location measurements and send the measurements to a location server (e.g., the LMF 120) for computation of a location estimate for the UE 105.” [0080]).
Regarding claim 31, VANDUREN discloses
The first mobile device of claim 26, wherein when the first mobile device is selected as one of the one or more other devices (“The UE 105 may include a single entity or may include multiple entities” [0071]), the one or more processors are further configured to send a position request to the leader device, the validator device, or both (“GMLC 125 may support a location request for the UE 105 received from the external client 130 “ [0078]).
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.
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 5, 7-9, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VANDUREN(US20210127292A1) in view of WANG(WO2022184227A1).
Regarding claim 5, VANDUREN discloses all of the limitations of claim 4. VANDUREN does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein the validator device being capable of performing more types of positioning methods than the leader device. WANG teaches in the same field of sidelink positioning systems. WANG discloses the method wherein, the validator device is capable of performing more types of positioning methods than the leader device(“The LMF may configure the activated location reference UEs to provide positioning measurement assistance over sidelink. The necessary parameter configuration may be conveyed to the UEs as positioning assistance data using LTE Positioning Protocol (LPP).” [Pg.35, ll.24-27]).
WANG teaches in the same field of sidelink positioning systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify VANDUREN with the teachings of WANG to incorporate the features of a validator device being capable of performing more types of positioning methods than the leader device so as to gain the advantage of improving location reference management [Pg.1, ll.36, WANG]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 7, VANDUREN discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. VANDUREN discloses the method wherein, the result of the attempt to determine the initial position estimate comprises: the initial position estimate (“The position device (PD) 219 may be configured to determine a position of the UE 200,” [0099]),
VANDUREN does not explicitly disclose nor limit an initial position estimate failure indication. WANG discloses the method comprising, an indication that the attempt to determine the initial position estimate has failed (“Correspondingly, the location reference response may contain one or more of the following attributes: success or failure indication” [Pg.24, ll.31-32])
WANG teaches in the same field of sidelink positioning systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify VANDUREN with the teachings of WANG to incorporate the features of an initial position estimate failure indication so as to gain the advantage of improving location reference management [Pg.1, ll.36, WANG]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 8, VANDUREN as modified by Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 7. VANDUREN discloses the method wherein, the result of the attempt to determine the initial position estimate comprises the initial position estimate, and the method further comprises: sending the initial position estimate to the one or more other devices(“For example, the UE 500 may share information with the UE 705 and the UE 705 may share information with the UE 500, and this shared information may be compared to confirm that the UE 500 was in communication range of the UE 705,” [0150]), sending the validated position estimate to the one or more other devices, or both (“one or more of the storing and comparing functions (or portions thereof) for confirming location of the UE 500 may be performed by one or more other devices” [0152]).
Regarding claim 9, VANDUREN as modified by Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 7. VANDUREN discloses the method wherein, the result of the attempt to determine the initial position estimate comprises the initial position estimate(“The position device (PD) 219 may be configured to determine a position of the UE 200,” [0099]); and sending the result to the validator device is responsive to a determination that a confidence level of the initial position estimate is below a threshold confidence level (“ location of the UE 105 may be expressed as an area or volume (defined either geographically or in civic form) within which the UE 105 is expected to be located with some probability or confidence level “ [0071]).
Regarding claim 16, VANDUREN as modified by Wang discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. VANDUREN discloses the method wherein the initial position estimate is determined using a first positioning method (“the UE 105 may obtain location measurements” [0080]),
VANDUREN does not explicitly disclose nor limit a second positioning method for position validation. WANG discloses the method wherein, determining the validated position estimate comprises using a second positioning method different than the first positioning method (“The LMF may configure the activated location reference UEs to provide positioning measurement assistance over sidelink. The necessary parameter configuration may be conveyed to the UEs as positioning assistance data using LTE Positioning Protocol (LPP).” [Pg.35, ll.24-27])
WANG teaches in the same field of sidelink positioning systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify VANDUREN with the teachings of WANG to incorporate the features of a second positioning method for position validation so as to gain the advantage of improving location reference management [Pg.1, ll.36, WANG]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VANDUREN(US20210127292A1) in view of ZHANG(US20220392337A1).
Regarding claim 11, VANDUREN discloses all of the limitations of claim 6. VANDUREN discloses the method further comprising performing a calibration of […], one or more algorithms (“The RSE processor 370 may instruct the UE 500 to adjust a rate of the position messages” [0136]).
VANDUREN does not explicitly disclose nor limit calibrating sensors. ZHANG discloses the method wherein further comprising performing a calibration of one or more sensors or both, of the first mobile device based at least in part on the validated position estimate (“At sub-stage 756, the sensor calibration unit 670 may use the position-related information and/or the calibration parameter(s) 754 to calibrate one or more of the sensors 640 of the UE 600” [0112])
ZHANG teaches in the same field of sidelink positioning systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify VANDUREN with the teachings of ZHANG to incorporate the features of calibrating sensors so as to gain the advantage of improving positioning accuracy [0027, ZHANG]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
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 CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646