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 § 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) 53, 54, 56-60, 64, 65 and 67-71 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Palatov et al. (Palatov, US PGPub 2021/0325504).
Referring to Claim 53, Palatov teaches obtaining, for one or more of a plurality of candidate anchor UEs, a mobility status of the one or more candidate anchor UE ([0010-0017] and [0035], also, [0023] and Claim 14 teach that consideration is made on if the node is moving or stationary); and selecting at least one candidate anchor UE from the plurality of candidate anchor UEs for positioning of the target UE based on the one or more mobility statuses; [0040-0051] and [0071]. Also see Fig. 2 and 5 and associated text, it is noted that while Palatov teaches nodes, there is nothing limiting the type of device the UE is limited to being.
Referring to Claims 54 and 65, Palatov teaches wherein obtaining the mobility status of the one or more candidate anchor UE includes obtaining the mobility status from the one or more candidate anchor UE, wherein the mobility status is determined by the one or more candidate anchor UE; [0074].
Referring to Claims 56 and 67, Palatov teaches wherein the mobility status determined by the one or more candidate anchor UE is radio access technology (RAT) independent; [0074].
Referring to Claims 57 and 68, Palatov teaches wherein the mobility status is determined by the one or more candidate anchor UE using an inertial measurement unit (IMU); [0074].
Referring to Claims, 58 and 69, Palatov teaches wherein the mobility status is provided periodically by the one or more candidate anchor UE; [0035].
Referring to Claims 59 and 70, Palatov teaches wherein the mobility status is provided by the one or more candidate anchor UE when the mobility status is greater than a mobility threshold; See Fig. 2 and associated text, using a threshold is implicit to determine if confidence levels are sufficient enough to proceed to the next step.
Referring to Claims 60 and 71, Palatov teaches wherein: UE-based positioning is to be performed by the target UE; and the mobility status is obtained by the target UE from the one or more candidate anchor UE via a sidelink (SL) between the target UE and the one or more candidate anchor UE; [0035] and Fig. 2 and associated text.
Referring to Claim 64, Palatov teaches at least one transceiver (implicit as the device transmits); at least one memory (implicit as the “neighborhood Manager” maintains a database; [0040]); and at least one processor (implicit form [0011-0012]) coupled to the at least one transceiver and the at least one memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the device to: obtain, via one or more of the at least one transceiver or the at least one processor and for one or more of a plurality of candidate anchor UEs, a mobility status of the candidate anchor UE; and select, via the at least one processor, at least one candidate anchor UE from the plurality of candidate anchor UEs for positioning of the target UE based on the one or more mobility statuses; see citations from Claim 53 above.
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) 55 and 66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palatov in view of Ng et al. (Ng, US PGPub 2013/0273938).
Referring to Claims 55 and 66, Palatov teaches the mobility status, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit it is determined by the one or more candidate anchor UE is radio access technology (RAT) dependent.
However, Ng teaches the mobility status determined by the one or more candidate anchor UE is radio access technology (RAT) dependent; [0090] and[0098].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Palatov with the mobility determination as taught by Ng as the multiple ways of determining mobility allow for better accuracy and improve position estimation.
Claim(s) 61-63 and 72-74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palatov in view of Hosono (JP2006093786 translation provided by Applicant).
Referring to Claims 61 and 72, Palatov teaches obtaining the mobility status of the one or more candidate anchor UE, but does not explicitly disclose nor limit it includes determining the mobility status from a position history of the one or more candidate anchor UE.
However, Hosono teaches obtaining the mobility status of the one or more candidate anchor UE includes determining the mobility status from a position history of the one or more candidate anchor UE; [0007] and [0035-0036].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Palatov with the historical data as taught by Hosono so as to provided comparative data to accurately estimate position of the device.
Referring to Claims 62 and 73, Palatov as modified by Hosono teaches wherein: UE-assisted positioning of the target UE is to be performed by a location server of the wireless network; and the position history of the one or more candidate anchor UE is determined by the location server from one or more reports from the one or more candidate anchor UE; [0035-0036] of Hosono.
Referring to Claims 63 and 74, Palatov as modified by Hosono teaches wherein the mobility status of one or more candidate anchor UE includes a speed of the one or more candidate anchor UE; [0036] of Hosono.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-26 and 97-108 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Referring to Claim 1, the prior art of record does not disclose nor suggest it be an obvious modification of one or more position measurements performed by the one or more candidate anchor UEs and (2) a measurement quality metric of each of the one or more position measurements; and selecting at least one candidate anchor UE from the plurality of candidate anchor UEs for positioning of the target UE based on the one or more measurement quality metrics from the one or more candidate anchor UEs; Referring to Claim 14, the prior art of record does not disclose nor suggest it be an obvious modification one or more position measurements performed by the one or more candidate anchor UEs and (2)a measurement quality metric of each of the one or more position measurements; and select, via the at least one processor, at least one candidate anchor UE from the plurality of candidate anchor UEs for positioning of the target UE based on the one or more measurement quality metrics from the one or more candidate anchor UEs; Referring to Claim 97, the prior art of record does not disclose nor suggest it be an obvious modification wherein obtaining, from the target UE or a relay UE via a base station, information associated with a plurality of geometric dilution of precisions (GDOPs), where each GDOP is determined for a different combination of candidate anchor UEs for a target UE from a plurality of candidate anchor UEs; and selecting one or more anchor UEs for positioning of the target UE from the plurality of candidate anchor UEs, where the selection is based on the obtained information; Referring to Claim 103, the prior art of record does not disclose nor suggest it be an obvious modification wherein obtain, via one or more of the at least one transceiver or the at least one processor and from the target UE or a relay UE via a base station, information associated with a plurality of geometric dilution of precisions (GDOPs), wherein each GDOP is determined for a different combination of candidate anchor UEs for a target UE from a plurality of candidate anchor UEs; and select, via one or more of the at least one transceiver or the at least one processor, one or more anchor UEs for positioning of the target UE from the plurality of candidate anchor UEs, wherein the selection is based on the obtained information.
Claims 2-13, 15-26, 98-102 and 104-108 are dependent on Claims 1, 14, 97 and 103 and are allowed for the same reasons.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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