DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 03/17/2026 and 05/07/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
3. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 02/16/2026. Claims 1-19 and 24 are pending in this application and have been considered below. Claims 20-23 and 25-27 are cancelled by the applicant.
4. Applicant arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siomina et al. (US 20150189610) in view of LINDSKOG et al. (US 20150382152) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner thoroughly reviewed Applicant’s arguments but firmly believes that the cited reference reasonably and properly meets the claimed limitation as rejected.
Applicant’s argument: Lindskog does not teach "angular phase deviation values associated with an antenna array phase center offset."
Examiner’s response: The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument. In figure 8, Lindskog shows AP 810 having an antenna array (see plurality of antenna 812 – 814) phase center offset (see the vertical line at the center phase offset). In paragraph 0114, Lindskog teaches “The example method assumes that a mobile STA can receive a signal from one or more APs that have multiple antennas. An example system in which the method may be implemented is shown in FIG. 8. The system includes a single AP 810 with two antennas 812 and 814 and non AP-STA 820 with one antenna 822.” In paragraph 0116, Lindskog teaches “Upon receiving the sounding signal for the antennas, the STA 820 sends a response to the AP 810 with a measure of the channel quality and a matrix that addresses any phase difference (interpreted to be angular phase deviation values) between the sounding signals received from the antennas 812 and 814. The AP 810 uses the quality measure and the matrix to form a steered beam transmission channel to the STA 820.” In paragraph 0117, Lindskog teaches “the received sounding measurements are used to determine the phase difference between (interpreted to be angular phase deviation values) the signals that are transmitted through the available transmit antennas 812 and 814. This angle defines a set of lines of constant phase difference that identify possible signal paths between the transmitting AP and receiving STA. In the example shown in FIG. 8, with two antennas, the non-AP STA receives sounding signals from the AP sent concurrently via the antennas 812 and 814.” In paragraph 0118, Lindskog teaches “By analysis of the respective times at which the signals are received (and the relationship between them), the STA 820 may determine, for example, that the signal from antenna 812 (path A) is delayed with respect to the signal from antenna 814 (path B) by an amount approximated by d.sin(Φ), where d is the distance between the antennas 812 and 814 of the AP 810. From this measurement, the STA 820 may deduce that the angle of the signal leaving the AP is Φ radians (or also possibly Φ+π radians). This angle is the angle of a straight-line path from a perpendicular line drawn through a central point between the two antennas, as shown in FIG. 8. Thus, Lindskog does teach "angular phase deviation values associated with an antenna array phase center offset" as recited in the rejected claim 1, 11 and 24. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use phase difference measurements (phase deviation values) as taught by LINDSKOG to modify the system and method of Siomina in order to identify possible signal paths between the transmitting and receiving devices (see Lindskog par 0117) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
5. 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.
Please note: Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, and figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teaching of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well.
Applicants are reminded that MPEP 2141.02 states:
A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-4, 7, 11-19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siomina et al. (US 20150189610) (hereinafter Siomina) in view of LINDSKOG et al. (US 20150382152) (hereinafter LINDSKOG).
Regarding claims 1 and 24:
As shown in figures 1-11, Siomina discloses a method, comprising:
transmitting, by a user equipment (130 in figure 2), an indication of a capability to report one or more time of departure compensation values (timing adjustments interpreted to be one or more time of departure compensation values. Par 0083) for one or more reference signals, wherein the one or more time of departure compensation values are associated with a positioning procedure (in par 0083 Siomina teaches “reporting a capability for the first node to the second node, where the capability indicates that the first node is capable of compensating positioning measurements or positioning results, or both, based on information related to one or more transmit timing adjustments applied to transmissions by a wireless device. Correspondingly, some methods may further include receiving a capability report from a second node, the capability indicating that the second node is capable of compensating positioning measurements or positioning results, or both, based on information related to one or more transmit timing adjustments applied to transmissions by a wireless device”);
determining the one or more time of departure compensation values for the one or more reference signals (par 0083); and
transmitting a report that comprises the one or more time of departure compensation values for the one or more reference signals (see figures 8, par 0083, 0274).
Siomina also discloses at least one processor (1110 in figure 11); and at least one memory (1150 in figure 11) comprising computer program code (1160 in figure 11), the at least one memory and computer program code configured, with the at least one processor (1110 in figure 11) (par 0298-0300) as recited in claim 24.
Siomina discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching based on one or more angular phase deviation values associated with an antenna array phase center offset.
However, LINDSKOG in the same field of endeavor teaches based on one or more angular phase deviation values (phase difference values) associated with an antenna array phase center offset (see figure 8, tables 1-3, par 0117-0121). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use phase difference measurements (phase deviation values) as taught by LINDSKOG to modify the system and method of Siomina in order to identify possible signal paths between the transmitting and receiving devices (par 0117) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Regarding claim 11:
As shown in figures 1-11, Siomina discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a network node (see in figure 2), an indication of a capability of a user equipment to report one or more time of departure compensation values (timing adjustments interpreted to be one or more time of departure compensation values. Par 0083) for one or more reference signals, wherein the one or more time of departure compensation values are associated with determining a positioning calculation (in par 0083 Siomina teaches “reporting a capability for the first node to the second node, where the capability indicates that the first node is capable of compensating positioning measurements or positioning results, or both, based on information related to one or more transmit timing adjustments applied to transmissions by a wireless device. Correspondingly, some methods may further include receiving a capability report from a second node, the capability indicating that the second node is capable of compensating positioning measurements or positioning results, or both, based on information related to one or more transmit timing adjustments applied to transmissions by a wireless device”);
receiving a report that comprises the one or more time of departure compensation values for the one or more reference signals (see figures 8, par 0083, 0274); and
determining the positioning calculation based on at least the one or more time of departure compensation values (par 0083).
Siomina discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching wherein the one or more time of departure compensation values are based on one or more angular phase deviation values associated with an antenna array phase center offset.
However, LINDSKOG in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the one or more time of departure compensation values are based on one or more angular phase deviation values associated with an antenna array phase center offset (see figure 8, tables 1-3, par 0117-0121). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use phase difference measurements (phase deviation values) as taught by LINDSKOG to modify the system and method of Siomina in order to identify possible signal paths between the transmitting and receiving devices (par 0117) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Regarding claims 2 and 12:
Siomina further discloses wherein the one or more reference signals comprise one or more sounding reference signals (par 0017, 0021-0022, 0032-0033).
Regarding claims 3 and 13:
Siomina further discloses an indication of a capability to report one or more time of departure estimated accuracy values (par 0112, 0252-0253, 0301).
Regarding claims 4 and 14:
Siomina further discloses determining the one or more time of departure estimated accuracy values for the one or more reference signals in association with determining the one or more time of departure compensation values (par 0112, 0252-0253, 0301).
Regarding claim 7:
Siomina further discloses wherein the report further comprises the one or more time of departure estimated accuracy values (par 0112, 0252-0253, 0301).
Regarding claim 15:
Siomina further discloses determining the positioning calculation based on the one or more time of departure compensation values (par 0082-0083).
Regarding claim 16:
Siomina further discloses determining the positioning calculation by compensating the positioning calculation with the one or more time of departure compensation values and the one or more time of departure estimated accuracy values (par 0112, 0252-0253, 0301).
Regarding claim 17:
Siomina further discloses determining the positioning calculation by compensating the positioning calculation with the one or more time of departure compensation values (par 0082-0083).
Regarding claim 18:
Siomina further discloses performing a positioning assessment based on the one or more time of departure compensation values (par abstract, 0082-0083, 0107, 0112-0118).
Regarding claim 19:
Siomina further discloses performing the positioning assessment based on one or more time of departure estimated accuracy values (par abstract, 0082-0083, 0107, 0112-0118).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 5-6 and 8-10 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.
10. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, Siomina does not teach or suggest wherein determining the one or more time of departure compensation values and the one or more time of departure estimated accuracy values further comprises: determining the one or more time of departure estimated accuracy values based on one or more angle of arrival values, one or more angular phase deviation values, and one or more angular phase deviation estimated accuracy values.
The prior art of record, Siomina also does not teach or suggest receiving assistance information and a request for the one or more time of departure compensation values; and wherein determining the one or more time of departure compensation values further comprises: determining the one or more time of departure compensation values based on the assistance information.
Conclusion
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KABIR A TIMORY whose telephone number is (571)270-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00 AM-3:00 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, Hannah S Wang can be reached at 571-272-9018. 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.
/KABIR A TIMORY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights