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 .
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 67-86 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 67 and 78 recites the broad recitation “…detecting a targeted signature over time in a Doppler spread and/or an angular spread associated with a wireless communication device…” (the wording in claim 78 is slightly different), and the claim also recites “…wherein said detecting comprises detecting a targeted signature over time in a Doppler spread associated with the wireless communication device…” (the wording in claim 78 is slightly different)) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 68-77 and 79-86 are dependent on Claims 67 and 78 and subject to the same rejection.
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) 67-73, 76-79 and 82-86 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong et al. (Kong, US PGPub 2012/0169535) in view of Tinnakornsrisuphap et al. (Tinnakornsrisuphap, US PGPub 2013/0237245).
Referring to Claim 67, Kong teaches detecting a targeted signature ([0088]) over time in a Doppler spread and/or an angular spread associated with a wireless communication device (Fig. 1 #110; [0023]); and based on detecting the targeted signature, detecting a transition (Fig. 3 #302; [0050]) by the wireless communication device between an indoor environment (Fig. 1 #102-2; [0023]) and an outdoor environment (Fig. 1 #102-1; [0023]), but does not explicitly disclose nor limit it comprises detecting a targeted signature over time in a Doppler spread associated with the wireless communication device.
However, Tinnakornsrisuphap teaches detecting a targeted signature over time in a Doppler spread associated with the wireless communication device; [0043].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kong with the Doppler spread measurements as taught by Tinnakornsrisuphap as it is a predictable well known way to determine the location or movement of a device.
Referring to Claims 68 and 79, Kong as modified by Tinnakornsrisuphap teaches the targeted signature over time in a Doppler spread associated with the wireless communication device comprises a temporary drop in the Doppler spread associated with the wireless communication device; see [0048-0049] of Tinnakornsrisuphap as this is implicit/obvious as it is taught to adjust coverage based on performance measurements to avoid interference between femtocell and macrocells and reselect cells with different coverage areas are entered, i.e. transition for inside to outside or outside to inside.
Referring to Claims 71 and 82, Kong as modified by Tinnakornsrisuphap teaches wherein said detecting comprises detecting a targeted signature over time in a Doppler spread and an angular spread associated with the wireless communication device; [0088] of Kong and [0043] of Tinnakornsrisuphap.
Referring to Claims 72 and 83, Kong as modified by Tinnakornsrisuphap teaches wherein the targeted signature over time in the angular spread comprises values of the angular spread changing by at least a threshold amount over the course of a maximum time period; [0050] of Kong.
Referring to Claims 73 and 84, Kong as modified by Tinnakornsrisuphap teaches responsive to detecting the transition, detecting an indoor signature or an outdoor signature over time in the Doppler spread or the angular spread associated with the wireless communication device, and determining whether the wireless communication device is in an indoor environment or an outdoor environment based respectively on whether the indoor signature or the outdoor signature is detected; [0088] of Kong.
Referring to Claims 76 and 85, Kong as modified by Tinnakornsrisuphap teach based on detecting the transition by the wireless communication device between an indoor environment and an outdoor environment: adapting one or more parameters that govern wireless communication to and/or from the wireless communication device; and/or adjusting resources allocated to the wireless communication device; and/or triggering a decision about whether to hand over the wireless communication device between network nodes; See Fig. 3 and [0051] of Tinnakornsrisuphap.
Referring to Claims 77 and 86, Kong as modified by Tinnakornsrisuphap teach wherein the wireless communication equipment is comprised in the wireless communication device and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to report, to a network node, the occurrence of the detected transition and/or a presence of the wireless communication device in the indoor environment or the outdoor environment; See Fig. 4 and associated text of Tinnakornsrisuphap.
Referring to Claim 78, Kong teaches communication circuitry; and processing circuitry configured to: detect a targeted signature over time in a Doppler spread and/or an angular spread associated with a wireless communication device; and based on detecting the targeted signature, detect a transition by the wireless communication device between an indoor environment and an outdoor environment; see citations of Claim 67 as this is the device equivalent claim and Fig. 1 and 3, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit it comprises detecting a targeted signature over time in a Doppler spread associated with the wireless communication device.
However, Tinnakornsrisuphap teaches detecting a targeted signature over time in a Doppler spread associated with the wireless communication device; [0043].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kong with the Doppler spread measurements as taught by Tinnakornsrisuphap as it is a predictable well known way to determine the location or movement of a device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 69, 70, 74, 75, 80 and 81 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are directed to the transition from an indoor to an outdoor environment and that the prior art does not teach this transition. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the combination of references is proper. The above citations of Kong clearly teach the transition between inside and outside, and while the Examiner believes this teaching satisfies the argument alone as the combination of references does not require every element to be the same, Tinnakornsrisuphap also teaches the transition inside and outdoors, rather obviously or implicitly. As provided above for the limitation directed to the temporary drop in Doppler spread, [0048-0049] teach location classification for resource/parameter adjustment. It is taught that different location measurement data is used to monitor if the device is inside or outside, “For example, based on the location classification information, the component 210 may determines whether femtocell 204 primarily servers mobile devices 204 located indoors or outdoors. From the performance measurement reports, the component 210 may determines if there is intra-frequency interference with adjacent femtocells and macrocells. Having analyzed this information, the component 210 may adjust coverage and/or channel assignment of the femto node 204 in order to improve femtocell coverage area and avoid interference with neighbor cells. For example, the femtocell 204 that primarily serves mobile devices located indoors may decrease its coverage area, so it does not cover the area outside of the building, which may have many high-speed mobile devices, which will attempt to reselect to the femtocell 204 every time they enter into coverage area of the femtocell, which may overload RF and processing resources of the femto node 204 and create unnecessary network traffic. In another example, femto node 204 that serves mobile devices located outdoors can select one RF channel/band (e.g., lower RF band) and adjacent femtocells located indoors may select a different RF channel/band (e.g., higher RF band) to prevent intra-frequency interference between adjacent femtocells and improve indoor and outdoor coverage. Other optimization techniques known to those of ordinary skill in the art may be used.” Based on this reading and understanding the using Doppler spread to determine the transition from inside to outside is both implicitly and obviously taught by the combined references. The rationale for the rejection of Claim 69 has been addressed in the claim rejection above. The Examiner maintains the rejection to the claims are provided above.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WHITNEY T MOORE whose telephone number is (571)270-3338. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 7am-4pm.
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 at (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.
/WHITNEY MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights