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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/1/2025 and 01/05/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 5, line 7 to Page 7 line 20, filed 10/27/2025, with respect to the 35 USC §112(b) rejection of claims 1-9 and 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the grounds of rejection have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments see Page 8, line 11 to Page 11 line 4, filed 10/27/2025 with respect to the 35 USC §101 rejection of claims 1-9 and 11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues against the Step 2A, Prong one and Step 2A, prong two analysis of the examiner. Abstract ideas are recited in the claims as previously noted in the office action of 07/25/2025 and acceded by the applicant in their response filed on 10/27/2025. The failure of the claims and specification to present a specific improvement to the technology precluded relying on ‘an improvement to the technology’ for the integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Nowhere in the claims or the specification is a process for selecting, defining, or arriving to a value for the “delay period” presented. The Applicant has merely described a technological challenge but has not presented anything more than an idea of a solution.
Based on the guidance presented to examiners in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for evaluating if an applicant's argument against a 35 USC §101 rejection based on an improvement, the burden shifts to the Applicant's representative to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology.
Applicant's arguments, see Page 11, line 5 to Page 12 line 17, filed 10/27/2025 with respect to the 35 USC §102 rejection of claims 1-9 and 11 as being anticipated by Siomina (US 20150133110) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The Applicant presents 4 arguments, a restatement of each argument with Examiner’s response follows:
Argument 1: Siomina does not disclose transmitting the cited reference downlink signal to the mobile terminal "on expiry of a delay period relative to an instant of transmission of the reference downlink signal by the network entity...," as recited in claim 1. Indeed, The E-SMLC (i.e., the network entity according to the Examiner's mapping) is described as a coordination node that collects synchronization information from eNodeBs, and computes and maintains timing characteristics (offset, drift, error variance) for each eNodeB or pair of eNodeBs ([0025], [0059], Fig 4a). (Page 11, lines 15-21).
Examiner’s Response: Applicant fails to acknowledge all the attributes and capabilities encompassed by the E-SMLC in the context of the LTE Positioning Protocol standard which is clearly referenced in Siomina [0020]. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the E-SMLC initiates positioning reference signals (PRS) by sending the configuration and timing information to the eNodeB via LPPa, transmitting “a PRS Signal” is not patently distinct from transmitting the parameters of the signal defined by the technical standard. The Applicant must provide arguments supported by evidence. The Applicant is further directed to LTE; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); LTE Positioning Protocol A (LPPa) (3GPP TS 36.455 version 16.1.0 Release 16) (2020-11) to understand all that is claimed in Siomina through referencing the 3GPP technical specification (Siomina, [0003] [0013] [0020] [0073]). The use of a secondary reference in connection with a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection is proper when the secondary reference is cited to show that the primary reference contains an “enabling disclosure”. See MPEP § 2131.01.
Argument 2: The E-SMLC does not transmit reference downlink signals. (Page 11, line 22).
Examiner’s Response: Applicant is directed to the response above. The E-SMLC transmits the configuration information for the PRS. Additionally, in the context of the applicant’s disclosure it is unclear what distinction they are attempting to highlight when the communication between the network entity and the radio unit is optionally optical (Specification; Page 9, lines 1-2, The links 3.2 and 4.2 between the network entity and the radio units 3.1 and 4.1 may be optical or electrical links.) in which case the ‘signal’ transmitted from the network entity to the radio unit is nothing like the reference downlink signal transmitted by the radio unit to the mobile terminal.
Argument 3: Additionally, the reference signals used for positioning are generated and transmitted by the eNodeBs themselves (Page 12, lines 4-5).
Examiner’s Response: Applicant is directed to the response to their 2nd argument above. The applicant discloses an embodiment which also requires their claimed radio unit to ‘generate’ the reference signal at the radio unit as much as is required by the disclosure of Siomina. If the Applicant intends to restrict the function of the radio unit to only acting as an RF repeater, the claim language needs to include the limitation.
Argument 4: Furthermore, time synchronization between eNodeBs is provided by an external source (GPS/GNSS - see para [0044]) or measured and maintained by the E-SMLC based on collected information (eNodeBs operate with their own clocks, which introduces timing offsets and drift), but not with respect to the transmission time of any reference signal sent by the E-SMLC. As a result, Siomina fails to disclose a delay relative to an instant of transmission of the reference downlink signal by the network entity, as recited in claim 1. For the same reasons, Siomina fails to disclose "a value of the delay period being greater than a transmission transit time of a comparison signal, between the network entity and the radio unit," as recited in claim 1. (Page 12, lines 6-14).
Examiner’s Response: Applicant’s argument neglects what was understood by one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention, namely, the Technical Standards as set forth by the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) which are incorporated by reference in Siomina. Specifically, the alignment of Frame boundaries as disclosed by (Siomina [0042]) and is integral to the technical specification of LPP and LPPa as is understood in the art. The act of frame alignment requires a delay of signal transmission and is functionally equivalent to the delay discussed in the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recites a method, a device, and a non-transitory computer readable data medium compromising instructions of a computer program for transmitting a reference downlink signal from a network entity to a mobile terminal. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person. Thus, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217-18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices {Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas {Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594-95 (1978)); and mental processes {Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” {Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” {id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267-68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour {Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract... is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” , 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”” Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation” fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well- understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Analysis
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 (and its dependents) recites a method. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 9 recites a device to carry out the method. Thus, the claim is a machine and/or manufacture and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 11 recites a method been carried out by a non-transitory computer readable medium. Thus, the claim is the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
As set forth above, claim 1, and similarly claims 9 and 11, recite a judicial exception since the claims set forth a mathematical relationship as defined at least by the claimed step of:
transmitting the reference downlink signal to the mobile terminal on expiry of a delay period relative to an instant of transmission of the reference downlink signal by the network entity a value of the delay period being greater than a transmission transit time of a comparison signal, between the network entity and the radio unit
The claim element of “a value of the delay period being greater than a transmission transit time” is a mathematical relationship which is under the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
In addition, dependent claims 2-4 and 7-8 further claiming information gleaned from the mental process. The steps as claimed in claims 2-4 and 7-8 may be performed by evaluating the data received, calculating the data to achieve the results utilizing mathematical concepts, and evaluating the results which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
The only additional element in claim 2 is “measuring a value of the transmission transit time of the comparison signal”. The only additional element of claim 3 is “the comparison signal is the reference downlink signal”. The only additional element of claim 4 is “the comparison signal is a signal distinct from the reference downlink signal”. Dependent claims 7 and 8 further claiming information gleaned from a mental process. The step of “determining” may be performed by processes data signals (i.e. reference or comparison signal transmission data) which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-4 and 7-8 fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Since the claims recite an abstract idea, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two to determine whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two, we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.
The only additional element of claim 1 is “receiving the reference downlink signal sent from the network entity and intended for the mobile terminal”, similarly for claims 9 and 11. The only additional element of claim 5 is “transmitting, to the network entity, the measured value of the transmission transit time of the comparison signal”. The only additional element of claim 6 is “receiving a message comprising the value of the delay period”. The only additional element of claim 7 is “transmitting a message comprising the determined value of the delay period to the network entity”. The only additional element of claim 8 is “transmitting a message comprising the determined value of the delay period to the mobile terminal”. Such elements, at a high-level of generality, merely recite data gathering by receiving data between the network entity, mobile terminal, and the radio unit. As such, such steps are insignificant extra--solution activity to the judicial exception. Further, claims 9 and 11 recite the method as being performed by a processor or computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality. The computer is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data and perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, it is determined whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field.
As stated above, claims 1-9, 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than data gathering steps that collect necessary data for determining and requires no more than a generic computer to perform operations and generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.
The courts have considered the following examples to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9,11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Siomina et al.(US PG Pub 20150133110), hereinafter Siomina.
Regarding claim 1, Siomina teaches a method for transmitting a reference downlink signal ([0008] UE-based and UE-assisted Observed Time Difference Of Arrival (OTDOA), where the UE position is determined based on UE measurements of reference signals from three or more sites or locations.) from a network entity (Fig. 1; 100 E-SMLC) to a mobile terminal (Fig. 1; 150 UE) via a radio unit connected to an antenna (Fig. 1; 110 Radio Base Station (RBE); [0003] a radio base station (RBS) 110a commonly referred to as an evolved NodeB (eNodeB)), used for the geolocation of the mobile terminal ([0014] The OTDOA positioning is a multi-lateration technique measuring TDOA of reference signals received from three or more sites. To enable positioning, the UE should thus be able to detect positioning reference signals from at least three geographically dispersed RBS with a suitable geometry, as the UE's position may be determined by the intersection of at least two hyperbolas.), the method being implemented by the radio unit and comprising:
receiving the reference downlink signal sent from the network entity and intended for the mobile terminal (Fig. 2a; [0014] With the OTDOA technique, the UE's position may be figured out based on the following measured parameters: [0015] TDOA measurements of downlink reference signals;[0020] LTE Positioning Protocol (LPP) and LTE Positioning Protocol annex (LPPa) are protocols useful for carrying out OTDOA in a control plane solution in LTE. When receiving a positioning request for the OTDOA method, the E-SMLC requests OTDOA-related parameters from eNodeB via LPPa. The E-SMLC then assembles and sends assistance data and the request for the positioning to the UE via LPP. FIG. 2a-d illustrate example architectures and protocol solutions of a positioning system in an LTE network. In the control plane solution, illustrated in FIG. 2a, the UE communicates with the E-SMLC transparently via the eNodeB and the Mobility Management Entity (MME) over LPP, and the eNodeB communicates with the E-SMLC transparently via the MME over LPPa.); and
transmitting the reference downlink signal to the mobile terminal on the expiry of a delay period relative to an instant of transmission of the reference downlink signal by the network entity ([0042] FIG. 3a-d illustrate synchronization status of eNodeBs according to some typical synchronization situations in a wireless network. The timing relation of frame transmissions of two neighbor eNodeBs, BS1 and BS2, is illustrated. BS1 may e.g. be a reference cell and BS2 a neighbor to the reference cell. In FIG. 3a the two eNodeBs are fully synchronized. BS1 and BS2 transmit their respective frame 0 simultaneously, and are thus not only frame aligned, but also System Frame Number (SFN) aligned, which occurs among all cells in a fully synchronized network.), a value of the delay period being greater than a transmission transit time of a comparison signal, between the network entity and the radio unit ([0042] Frame alignment means that the frame boundaries are transmitted at the same time from each eNodeB. The cells are SFN aligned if the frame boundaries of frames with a same frame number are transmitted at the same time from each eNodeB.).
Regarding claim 2, Siomina teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, comprising measuring a value of the transmission transit time of the comparison signal (Fig. 7a, 702 Determining Circuit; [0121] The coordinating node 700 and the RBS 750 are schematically illustrated in FIG. 7a, according to embodiments of the invention. The coordinating node 700 is configured to be used in a wireless communication system and to maintain timing characteristics of RBSs 750 connectable to the coordinating node 700. The coordinating node 700 may in embodiments be co-located with a positioning node in a control plane or user plane architecture of an LTE network, or with an OSS. The E-SMLC is an example of the positioning node in a control plane solution. The coordinating node 700 includes a receiver circuit 701 for receiving timing information from a plurality of RBSs, and a determining circuit 702 for determining a respective timing characteristic of each of the plurality of RBSs based on the received timing information. The timing information includes absolute timing information, or timing information relative to a timing reference and the timing characteristics includes at least one of an offset, a drift rate, and an error variance.).
Regarding claim 3, Siomina teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the comparison signal is the reference downlink signal ([0073] In step 2, the E-SMLC requests timing information from the eNodeBs identified in step 1, or alternatively from all eNodeBs if step 1 is not performed. In LTE, the request may be transmitted by means of the LPPa protocol over the eNodeB-E-SMLC interface. [0074] In step 3a a timing characteristic of each eNodeB is determined based on the received timing information. The determined timing characteristics might be one or more of an offset, a drift rate, and a timing error variance. Given a time series of timing information obtained in step 2, i.e. a discrete set of offsets offset(t) from equation [5] above, the unknown parameters offset_init, DR1, DR2 and var(v(t)), where var(v(t)) is the variance of the residual timing error, may be estimated).
Regarding claim 4, Siomina teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the comparison signal is a signal distinct from the reference downlink signal ([0070] In an alternative embodiment, the coordinating node is an OSS connected to each eNodeB. In this case the interfaces between eNodeB and OSS are used for transmitting/receiving the eNodeB timing information, and the interface between OSS and E-SMLC is used by the E-SMLC to retrieve the timing characteristics and the indicators.).
Regarding claim 5, Siomina teaches the method as claimed in claim 2, comprising transmitting, to the network entity, the measured value of the transmission transit time of the comparison signal ([0073] In step 2, the E-SMLC requests timing information from the eNodeBs identified in step 1, or alternatively from all eNodeBs if step 1 is not performed.).
Regarding claim 6, Siomina teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, comprising receiving a message comprising the value of the delay period ([0067] The purpose is thus to let the eNodeBs report timing information to the coordinating node in order to allow the coordinating node to determine timing characteristics of the eNodeBs, e.g. based on an estimation. The coordinating node will maintain the determined timing characteristics, which may be used for network operations and services such as positioning. [0068] The maintained timing characteristics and indicators may also be used for other network operations and services than positioning, e.g. as a basis for sending alarms to the OSS or to be used together with or in relation to a minimizing driving test feature. The timing information, possible requests for the timing information, and/or results of its processing may be transmitted over the interfaces between the corresponding nodes, e.g. over LPPa for communication between eNodeB and E-SMLC, over a proprietary interface between E-SMLC and SLP, over a proprietary or standardized interface between eNodeB and LMU, over LPPa between LMU and positioning node, over X2 between two eNodeBs, and over a proprietary or standardized interface between eNodeB and OSS. [0069] The coordinating node is in one embodiment an E-SMLC of an LTE system, and the LPPa interface between eNodeBs and the E-SMLC is used to signal the timing information.).
Regarding claim 7, Siomina teaches the method as claimed in claim 2, comprising: determining the value of the delay period on the basis of the measured value of the transit time of the comparison signal ([0077] In step 3b a relative timing characteristic, such as a relative offset, drift rate and timing error variance is determined for pairs of eNodeBs, including one reference eNodeB and one eNodeB neighbor to the reference eNodeB. [0081] Since it is the relative timing characteristics of neighbor eNodeBs that is needed for OTDOA positioning, the determination and maintenance of relative timing characteristics is a more precise method to build OTDOA assistance data, although it is less convenient for the E-SMLC.), and transmitting a message comprising the determined value of the delay period to the network entity ([0088] In steps 4a and 4b, the E-SMLC updates the database with the newly determined timing characteristics for each eNodeB and the relative timing characteristics for each eNodeB pair respectively. The database which may be an external database or a database internal to the E-SMLC).
Regarding claim 8, Siomina teaches the method as claimed in claim 2, comprising: determining the value of the delay period on the basis of the measured value of the transit time of the comparison signal (([0077] In step 3b a relative timing characteristic, such as a relative offset, drift rate and timing error variance is determined for pairs of eNodeBs, including one reference eNodeB and one eNodeB neighbor to the reference eNodeB. [0081] Since it is the relative timing characteristics of neighbor eNodeBs that is needed for OTDOA positioning, the determination and maintenance of relative timing characteristics is a more precise method to build OTDOA assistance data, although it is less convenient for the E-SMLC.), and transmitting a message comprising the determined value of the delay period to the mobile terminal ([0021] Therefore, to facilitate UE positioning measurements, the wireless network transmits assistance data to the UE. The assistance data and its quality are important for both the UE-based and the UE-assisted mode, although assistance data contents may differ for the two modes. The standardized assistance data includes among others a neighbor cell list with physical cell identities, a number of consecutive downlink sub frames used for the reference signals, an expected timing difference, and a search window.).
Regarding claim 9, Siomina teaches a device (Fig. 7a-b; 700 coordinating node) for transmitting a reference downlink signal from a network entity to a mobile terminal via a radio unit connected to an antenna, used for the geolocation of the mobile terminal, the device being included in the radio unit and comprising:
a receiver (Fig. 7b, 701 Receiver circuit), a transmitter (Fig. 7b, 705 Transmitter circuit), a processor (Fig. 7b, 724 processing unit) and a memory (Fig. 7b, 725 Computer program product; [0127] Furthermore, the coordinating node 700 includes at least one computer program product 725 in the form of a non-volatile memory, e.g. an EEPROM (Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory), a flash memory or a disk drive.) coupled to the processor with instructions stored thereon to be executed by the processor to:
receiving receive the reference downlink signal sent from a network entity ([0069] The coordinating node is in one embodiment an E-SMLC of an LTE system, and the LPPa interface between eNodeBs and the E-SMLC is used to signal the timing information.) and intended for the mobile terminal; and transmit the reference downlink signal to the mobile terminal () on the expiry of a delay period relative to an instant of transmission of the reference downlink signal by the network entity ([0042] FIG. 3a-d illustrate synchronization status of eNodeBs according to some typical synchronization situations in a wireless network. The timing relation of frame transmissions of two neighbour eNodeBs, BS1 and BS2, is illustrated. BS1 may e.g. be a reference cell and BS2 a neighbour to the reference cell. In FIG. 3a the two eNodeBs are fully synchronized. BS1 and BS2 transmit their respective frame 0 simultaneously, and are thus not only frame aligned, but also System Frame Number (SFN) aligned, which occurs among all cells in a fully synchronized network.), the value of the delay period being greater than a transmission transit time of a comparison signal, between the network entity and the radio unit ([0042] Frame alignment means that the frame boundaries are transmitted at the same time from each eNodeB. The cells are SFN aligned if the frame boundaries of frames with a same frame number are transmitted at the same time from each eNodeB.).
Regarding claim 11, Siomina teaches a non-transitory computer readable data medium comprising instructions of a computer program () stored thereon which when executed by a radio unit of a cellular network configure the radio unit to implement a method of transmitting a reference downlink signal from a network entity to a mobile terminal via the radio unit ([0014] The OTDOA positioning is a multi-lateration technique measuring TDOA of reference signals received from three or more sites. To enable positioning, the UE should thus be able to detect positioning reference signals), which is connected to an antenna, the reference downlink signal being used for geolocation of the mobile terminal, the method comprising: receiving the reference downlink signal sent from a network entity and intended for the mobile terminal ([0014] FIG. 2a-d illustrate example architectures and protocol solutions of a positioning system in an LTE network. In the control plane solution, illustrated in FIG. 2a, the UE communicates with the E-SMLC transparently via the eNodeB and the Mobility Management Entity (MME) over LPP, and the eNodeB communicates with the E-SMLC transparently via the MME over LPPa.); and transmitting the reference downlink signal to the mobile terminal on expiry of a delay period relative to an instant of transmission of the reference downlink signal by the network entity (Fig. 2a; [0014] With the OTDOA technique, the UE's position may be figured out based on the following measured parameters: [0015] TDOA measurements of downlink reference signals;[0020] LTE Positioning Protocol (LPP) and LTE Positioning Protocol annex (LPPa) are protocols useful for carrying out OTDOA in a control plane solution in LTE. When receiving a positioning request for the OTDOA method, the E-SMLC requests OTDOA-related parameters from eNodeB via LPPa. The E-SMLC then assembles and sends assistance data and the request for the positioning to the UE via LPP. FIG. 2a-d illustrate example architectures and protocol solutions of a positioning system in an LTE network. In the control plane solution, illustrated in FIG. 2a, the UE communicates with the E-SMLC transparently via the eNodeB and the Mobility Management Entity (MME) over LPP, and the eNodeB communicates with the E-SMLC transparently via the MME over LPPa.), a value of the delay period being greater than a transmission transit time of a comparison signal, between the network entity and the radio unit ([0042] FIG. 3a-d illustrate synchronization status of eNodeBs according to some typical synchronization situations in a wireless network. The timing relation of frame transmissions of two neighbor eNodeBs, BS1 and BS2, is illustrated. BS1 may e.g. be a reference cell and BS2 a neighbor to the reference cell. In FIG. 3a the two eNodeBs are fully synchronized. BS1 and BS2 transmit their respective frame 0 simultaneously, and are thus not only frame aligned, but also System Frame Number (SFN) aligned, which occurs among all cells in a fully synchronized network. Frame alignment means that the frame boundaries are transmitted at the same time from each eNodeB. The cells are SFN aligned if the frame boundaries of frames with a same frame number are transmitted at the same time from each eNodeB.).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited 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.
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 JOHN BS ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4145. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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.
/JBSA/Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights