DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Kato para. [0036] discloses the wireless device relies on location information of the base station to determine the beam direction (paragraph bridging response pages 6-7 and lines 5-10 of first full paragraph on page 7), Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Kato para. [0036] teaches that position estimates “may” and “In this case... can” be used to “estimate the direction from the base station apparatus 10 to the terminal apparatus 20 by measuring the location of the terminal apparatus”, there is no indication that the position estimates are required in order to determine the amount of rotation - rather, para. [0036] appears to be only an optional alternative to what is described in para. [0035].
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the claimed invention is distinguishable from Kato because the amended claims state that the first and second angular measurements are obtained “by measurement of signals transmitted between an antenna array of the wireless device and an antenna array of the first access node”, while Kato, in contrast, uses a beam sweeping procedure (lines 1-5 of first full paragraph response page 7), Examiner agrees that Kato does not teach an antenna array. However, a secondary reference, Seol, has now been introduced as evidence that it would have been obvious to modify Kato such that the beam sweeping is performed using an antenna array.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 24 is maintained because Applicant did not amend the claim or provide any arguments.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been modified in view of the claim amendments. Examiner notes that Applicant did not provide any arguments directed to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
Applicant did not traverse Examiner’s use of OFFICIAL NOTICE in claims 29 and 30. Examiner’s assertions are therefore taken to be admitted prior art.
Claim Interpretation
In claims 21, 38, and 39, a control unit is recited as “obtaining first angular measurements of the wireless device at a first access node and second angular measurements of the first access node at the wireless device, wherein the first angular measurements and second angular measurements are obtained by measurement of signals transmitted between an antenna array of the wireless device and an antenna array of the first access node”.
According to specification page 8 line 27 – page 9 line 4, signal measurements are performed at wireless device 400 and first access node 300a, while “the actual calculation of the angular measurements might be performed elsewhere, for example by the control unit 200”.
As claims 21, 38, and 39 are directed to actions performed by the control unit, the scope of the “obtaining” step is therefore understood to include receiving and processing measurement data to calculate angular measurements, but not receiving or measuring signals themselves.
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 21-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 - Statutory Category
Claim 21 recites a method for orientation determination of a wireless device with
respect to a first coordinate system and is therefore a process.
Step 2A, Prong One - Recitation of a Judicial Exception
Claim 21 recites:
- obtaining first angular measurements of the wireless device at a first access node and second angular measurements of the first access node at the wireless device, wherein the first angular measurements and second angular measurements are obtained by measurement of signals transmitted between an antenna array of the wireless device and an antenna array of the first access node, and wherein the first access node is oriented in the first coordinate system, and wherein the wireless device is oriented in a second coordinate system; and
- determining, by aligning the second angular measurements with the first angular measurements, an amount of rotation of the second coordinate system with respect to the first coordinate system, wherein the orientation of the wireless device with respect to the first coordinate system is defined by the amount of the rotation and is determined without requiring position estimates of the wireless device or the first access node.
These steps fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas
enumerated in the 2019 PEG. As discussed above with respect to claim interpretation, the “obtaining” step is understood to comprise calculation of angular measurements, and in the “determining” step the amount of rotation is determined using mathematical equations as shown on pages 12-13 of the specification.
Claim 21 therefore recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two - Practical Application
Claim 21 further recites the method being performed by a control unit. However, the specification describes the control unit as comprising processing circuitry (page 4 lines 4-5 "The control unit comprises processing circuitry"). Processing circuitry includes within its scope generic computer equipment that is merely used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. In performing the abstract idea the processing circuitry merely performs the generic computer functions of obtaining data and performing calculations. The courts have found that insignificant extra-solution activity and generic computer equipment do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d) I). These elements therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application of the exception.
Step 2B - Inventive Concept
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements recited in
claim 21 include generic computer equipment. The courts have found that generic computer equipment does not amount to significantly more, i.e. it does not amount to an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.5 A). These elements therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, i.e. they do not amount to an inventive concept. Claim 21 is therefore not patent eligible.
Claims 22-32 and 34-37 recite further steps for gathering data and further details of the mathematical concept without integrating the abstract idea into a practical
application or adding significantly more.
Claim 33 describes the control unit as part of the wireless device or the first
access node or a core network node. However in either of these cases the control unit
remains generic computer equipment. The control unit being "part of" any of these
elements is merely a general link to a particular technological environment or field of
use.
Independent claims 38 and 39 differ from claim 21 in reciting a control unit
comprising processing circuitry and a non-transitory, computer-readable medium
comprising executable program code that is executed by processing circuitry of a
control unit, respectively. However these elements are merely generic computer
equipment that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add
significantly more.
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.
Claim 24 is 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.
Regarding claim 24, “the third angular measurements” and “the fourth angular measurements” lack antecedent basis in claim 22, on which claim 24 depends. Examiner recommends amending claim 24 to depend on claim 23, as claim 23 provides basis for these terms.
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.
Claims 21-24, 28, and 32-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 20200059889 A1, cited on IDS) in view of Seol (US 20140146863 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Kato teaches [NOTE: limitations not taught are lined through; limitations added by amendment are underlined] a method for orientation determination of a wireless device (terminal apparatus 20, Fig. 2, or 200, Fig. 3) with respect to a first coordinate system, the method being performed by a control unit (“orientation measuring unit”, abstract), the method comprising:
obtaining first angular measurements of the wireless device at a first access node (base station 10, Fig. 2, or 100, Fig. 3 comprises a first access node; para. [0037] “base station beam candidate 101-m” that maximizes SNR as a result of the “above described searching process” implicitly provides an angular measurement of the wireless device 200) and second angular measurements of the first access node at the wireless device (para. [0037] “the beam candidate, among the terminal beam candidates 201-1, 201-2, 201-3, and 201-4, in which a Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR)... or the like is maximized” implicitly provides an angular measurement of the access node 100), wherein the first angular measurements and second angular measurements are obtained by measurement of signals transmitted between an antenna (200, Fig. 3; para. [0037] “terminal antenna 200”) and an antenna (100, Fig. 3; para. [0037] “base station antenna 100”), and wherein the first access node is oriented in the first coordinate system, and wherein the wireless device is oriented in a second coordinate system (see respective coordinate systems in Fig. 3; also para. [0039] “global coordinate system” and “local coordinate system of the terminal apparatus 20”); and
determining, by aligning the second angular measurements with the first angular measurements, an amount of rotation of the second coordinate system with respect to the first coordinate system, wherein the orientation of the wireless device with respect to the first coordinate system is defined by the amount of the rotation (paras. [0039]-[0041], esp. “estimating the orientation of the terminal apparatus 20, by estimating a rotation matrix from the global coordinate system to the local coordinate system of the terminal apparatus 20” and “estimating the orientation of the terminal apparatus 20... by estimating a quaternion from the global coordinate system to the local coordinate system”, where the rotation matrix provides alignment and amount of rotation as claimed) and is determined without requiring position estimates of the wireless device or the first access node (while para. [0036] teaches that position estimates “may” and “In this case... can” be used to “estimate the direction from the base station apparatus 10 to the terminal apparatus 20 by measuring the location of the terminal apparatus”, there is no indication that the position estimates are required in order to determine the amount of rotation; rather, para. [0036] appears to be only an alternative to what is described in para. [0035]).
As indicated by the lined through language above, Kato does not teach the antennas comprising antenna arrays.
However, Kato para. [0037] teaches that beam sweeping is used, and Kato para. [0003] states “PTL 1 discloses an operation method for performing beamforming by beam sweeping”, where para. [0006] identifies PTL 1 as JP 2016-506112 to Toda. Seol, an English language equivalent of Toda, teaches beam sweeping (para. [0104] “BS 310 sweeps and transmits a plurality of beamforming signals”) using antenna arrays (“antenna array” paras. [0050]-[0052]).
It would have been obvious to modify Kato by implementing the antennas as antenna arrays as taught by Seol because the beam sweeping must be implemented in some manner and antenna arrays are known and could be used with predictable results. This is a matter of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Regarding claim 22, Kato teaches wherein the orientation of the wireless device further is determined by supplementary orientation indicating information (para. [0039] teaches M=4 base stations providing orientation indicating information, where information from three of these can be considered “supplementary”).
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Kato teaches obtaining third angular measurements of the wireless device at a second access node and fourth angular measurements of the second access node at the wireless device, wherein the second access node is oriented in the first coordinate system, and wherein the orientation of the wireless device further is defined by an amount of rotation of the second coordinate system with respect to the first coordinate system needed for aligning the fourth angular measurements with the third angular measurements (paras. [0039]-[0041] teach M=4 base stations providing orientation indicating information in the same manner discussed above with respect to claim 21, all of which are oriented in the global coordinate system, and one of which meets the claimed “second access node”).
Regarding claim 28, Kato does not appear to teach any relative movement between the first access node and the wireless device. Further, Karo para. [0031] teaches the first access node comprising “a transmission device, a cell, a transmission point, a group of transmit antennas, a group of transmit antenna ports, a component carrier, eNodeB, and an access point”, and the wireless device comprising “a terminal, a mobile terminal, a reception point, a reception terminal, a reception device, a group of receive antennas, a group of receive antenna ports, UE, a station”, and one of ordinary skill would not expect any relative movement for at least some combinations of these elements.
Further, it would have been obvious to exclude relevant movement in order to accurately determine the amount of rotation.
Regarding claim 32, Kato teaches wherein the angular measurements are determined by any of: the wireless device, the first access node, at least partly by the wireless device and at least partly by the first access node, by a core network node operatively connected to the first access node (para. [0037] teaches at least the wireless device, i.e. terminal apparatus 20, determining the angular measurements, as it is the wireless device that determines maximum SNR among different transmission and reception beam candidates).
Regarding claim 33, Kato teaches wherein the control unit (“orientation measuring unit”, abstract) is part of the wireless device or the first access node or a core network node (“location server”, para. [0016]), wherein the core network node is operatively connected to the first access node (see connection between access nodes 10-I and location server 40 through network 30, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 34, Kato teaches wherein the first coordinate system is a global coordinate system (para. [0039] “global coordinate system”).
Regarding claim 35, Kato teaches wherein the first coordinate system is a coordinate system local to the first access node (para. [0034] “the orientation is not limited to that in the global coordinate system, and may be the orientation of the terminal apparatus 20 in a coordinate system shared by a base station apparatus 10”).
Regarding claim 36, Kato’s beams 100-i and 200-i, Fig. 3, which provide angular measurements as discussed above with respect to claim 21, comprise angle-of-arrival measurements at terminal apparatus 20/200, and angle-of-departure measurements at first access node 10/100.
Regarding claim 37, Kato teaches wherein, when the first angular measurements are angle-of-arrival measurements, the first angular measurements represent the angle-of- arrival of a signal received by the first access node from the wireless device (this will be the case if the terminal apparatus 20/200 performs transmission and the first access node 10/100 reception as taught in para. [0037] “Note that in the above description, the case that the base station apparatus 10 performs transmission and the terminal apparatus 20 performs reception has been described, but the terminal apparatus 20 may perform transmission and the base station apparatus 10 may perform reception”).
Regarding claims 38 and 39, in addition to what has already been discussed with respect to claim 21, Kato teaches the control unit (“orientation measuring unit”, abstract) comprising a processing circuitry (para. [0098] “multi-purpose processor”) and non-transitory, computer-readable medium (para. [0097] “a semiconductor medium (ROM, a non-volatile memory card, or the like, for example)”).
Claims 25-27 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 20200059889 A1, cited on IDS) and Seol (US 20140146863 A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Gotoh (US 20030217070 A1) and Gao (US 20140070986 A1).
Regarding claims 25-27 and 31, Kato does not teach wherein the wireless device is equipped with at least one orientation indicating sensor, wherein the orientation of the wireless device further is determined using an orientation indicating signal as provided by the orientation indicating sensor, and wherein the orientation indicating sensor is any of: an accelerometer, a gravity sensor, a magnetometer.
However, Kato’s wireless device may comprise a cellular phone (para. [0101]), and it is well-known for a cellular phone to comprise an orientation indicating sensor such as an accelerometer, a gravity sensor, a magnetometer. For example, see Gotoh’s accelerometer 13 in cellular phone 10, Fig. 1. Kato teaches the accelerometer provides location information when GPS is unavailable (para. [0096]). It would have been obvious to modify Kato by including an orientation indicating sensor such as an accelerometer in the wireless device because it is a conventional cellular phone feature with the advantage of providing additional location information.
Regarding the orientation of the wireless device further determined using an orientation indicating signal as provided by the orientation indicating sensor, it is well-known to determine wireless device orientation by combining a plurality of orientation indications. For example see Gao para. [0095], esp. “The first orientation and the second orientation are combined into a third orientation.” One of ordinary skill would recognize that combining two independent orientation measurements would result in an improved final orientation, and it would have been obvious to further modify Kato according to Gao for this reason.
Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (US 20200059889 A1, cited on IDS) and Seol (US 20140146863 A1) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Regarding claims 29, and 30, Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is well-known to perform measurements within a predetermined time interval, to timestamp measurements, and to interpolate between measurements. It would have been obvious to perform measurements within a predetermined time interval and to timestamp measurements in order to consistently and reliably record data. It would have been obvious to perform interpolation between measurements in order to obtain data at points that have not been explicitly measured, thereby improving resolution of the determined rotation. These are conventional methods of collecting, processing, and recording data that could be used with predictable results.
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 CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, WILLIAM KELLEHER can be reached at (571)272-7753. 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights