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 2, 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 claims 2, 7-8, 12, 17-18, the claims refer to “wherein any one or more out of:” or “wherein any one out of.” This language is unclear and for the purpose of examination, the examiner has read the limitation as an alternative grouping requiring only one of the elements of the claim.
Appropriate correction is requested.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo (WO2020/221267).
Regarding claim 1, Guo discloses a method performed by a network node (LMF) for determining reliability of a position of a User equipment (UE) in a wireless communications network (Figure 1) comprising: obtaining a first position of the UE (step 311a, Figure 3b, UE based position measurement), obtaining a second position of the UE (Step 311b, network assisted positioning). Guo further discloses determining whether or not the first and second position are reliable based on comparison of the two position measurements (step 312, figure 3c) and determining that they are reliable if the difference is below a first threshold (para 120, within a preset error range) and determining that the positions are not reliable when the difference is above a second threshold (para 121, exceeding a preset error range is higher than the first threshold).
Regarding claim 3, Guo discloses when it is determined that the first and second position are not reliable, sending a warning that the positions are not reliable (sending an alarm to the client, para 121). Guo discloses that the alarm is sent to the operator of the wireless network (alarm is sent to GMLC, and the client or AF) and that the warning is an instruction to change the position of the UE or device associated with the UE (Para 125, historical behavior is stored and para 128, use of another positioning calculation).
Regarding claim 7, Guo discloses wherein any one out of: the first position is estimated in part using the network node (Network-assisted positioning 311b) and the second position is estimated in part the UE (UE assisted positioning – 311a).
Regarding claim 21, Guo discloses a network node (location monitoring function) configured to determine reliability of a position of a User equipment (UE) in a wireless communications network (Figure 1) comprising: obtaining a first position of the UE (step 311a, Figure 3b, UE based position measurement), obtaining a second position of the UE (Step 311b, network assisted positioning). Guo further discloses determining whether or not the first and second position are reliable based on comparison of the two position measurements (step 312, figure 3c) and determining that they are reliable if the difference is below a first threshold (para 120, within a preset error range) and determining that the positions are not reliable when the difference is above a second threshold (para 121, exceeding a preset error range is higher than the first threshold).
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 2, 8 , and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Edge (2015/0215762).
Regarding claim 2, Guo discloses the positioning system uses an error range for determining reliability. Guo does not explicitly say that the range is an indication of an integrity level of the position measurement. However, Edge teaches in an analogous art, a positioning system in which integrity levels (confidence intervals, para 45, 49, 91) are used in multiple position measurements (Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a confidence/integrity level in order to provide customizable accuracy based on a client, as suggested by Edge.
Regarding claim 8, Edge further teaches that the thresholds are adjustable based on the required precision of detection/position reliability (para 91, percentage or distance required for positioning measurements). Thus, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasoning as given in claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 22, Guo further discloses when it is determined that the first and second position are not reliable, sending a warning that the positions are not reliable (sending an alarm to the client, para 121). Guo discloses that the alarm is sent to the operator of the wireless network (alarm is sent to GMLC, and the client or AF) and that the warning is an instruction to change the position of the UE or device associated with the UE (Para 125, historical behavior is stored and para 128, use of another positioning calculation). Guo does not explicitly say that the range is an indication of an integrity level of the position measurement. However, Edge teaches in an analogous art, a positioning system in which integrity levels (confidence intervals, para 45, 49, 91) are used in multiple position measurements (Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a confidence/integrity level in order to provide customizable accuracy based on a client, as suggested by Edge.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Dong (EP 3200521).
Regarding claim 4, Guo discloses all the particulars of the claim except sending to the UE, the position information of the UE. However, Dong teaches a positioning method in which the UE is sent the positioning measurement by the system (Figure 506, the requesting terminal to be positioned, is send its position information from the server). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to include the positioning information to the UE so that the UE can receive accurate data in the process.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo and Dong as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Manolakos (2021/0160812).
Regarding claims 5-6, Guo discloses in a network based positioning system determining that the position is not reliable based on the difference in positions and first/second thresholds as well as alerting/warning that the positions are not reliable. Guo fails to disclose the use of a UE in determining positions. However, Manolakos teaches a location system in which a user equipment is used to determine position measurements (abstract, Figure 12) in which multiple measurements are made/received by the UE (1210, 1220, 1230). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to include a UE based positioning system in order to provide decentralized control of the location process.
Claims 11, 13-14, 15-17, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos in view of Guo.
Regarding claim 11 and 29, Manolakos discloses a method performed by a UE (abstract) for determining positions of the UE in a wireless communications network (Figure 1) comprising: obtaining a first position of the UE and a second position of the UE (one or more positioning measurements 1220). Manolakos does not disclose the determination of the reliability of the position based on the measurements.
However, Guo teaches determining whether or not the first and second position measurements (311a, 311b) are reliable based on comparison of the two position measurements (step 312, figure 3c) and determining that they are reliable if the difference is below a first threshold (para 120, within a preset error range) and determining that the positions are not reliable when the difference is above a second threshold (para 121, exceeding a preset error range is higher than the first threshold). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include reliability information in order to provide accurate position information to the user.
Regarding claim 13-14, Guo further teaches, when it is determined that the first and second position are not reliable, sending a warning that the positions are not reliable (sending an alarm to the client, para 121). Guo discloses that the alarm is sent to the operator of the wireless network (alarm is sent to GMLC, and the client or AF) and that the warning is an instruction to change the position of the UE or device associated with the UE (Para 125, historical behavior is stored and para 128, use of another positioning calculation). Guo also teaches that a position measurement is sent to the network node (LMF) for determining a position of a UE (step 311b) Therefore, the claims are rejected for the same reasoning as given in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Regarding claims 15-16, Manolakos discloses a location system in which a user equipment is used to determine position measurements (abstract, Figure 12) in which multiple measurements are made/received by the UE (1210, 1220, 1230). Manolakos does not disclose determining that the position is not reliable as well as use of alerts/warnings. However, Guo teaches in a network based positioning system determining that the position is not reliable based on the difference in positions and first/second thresholds as well as alerting/warning that the positions are not reliable.(para 120-121). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention to include a alerts/warnings based on the position being not reliable in order to notify the user of discrepancies in the system.
Regarding claim 17, Manolakos discloses that a first position of the UE is using at least part the network node (DL/UL reference signal measurements, Figure 4) and the second position is estimated using at least in part the UE (UE based measurements, Figure 4).
Claims 12,18, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manolakos and Guo as applied to claims 11 and 29 above, and further in view of Edge.
Regarding claim 12, the combination discloses the positioning system uses an error range for determining reliability. The combination does not explicitly say that the range is an indication of an integrity level of the position measurement. However, Edge teaches in an analogous art, a positioning system in which integrity levels (confidence intervals, para 45, 49, 91) are used in multiple position measurements (Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a confidence/integrity level in order to provide customizable accuracy based on a client, as suggested by Edge.
Regarding claim 18, Edge further teaches that the thresholds are adjustable based on the required precision of detection/position reliability (para 91, percentage or distance required for positioning measurements). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include adjustable thresholds in order to allow greater precision in the measurements.
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Manolakos and Guo further discloses when it is determined that the first and second position are not reliable, sending a warning that the positions are not reliable (Guo, sending an alarm to the client, para 121). Guo discloses that the alarm is sent to the operator of the wireless network (alarm is sent to GMLC, and the client or AF) and that the warning is an instruction to change the position of the UE or device associated with the UE (Para 125, historical behavior is stored and para 128, use of another positioning calculation). Guo does not explicitly say that the range is an indication of an integrity level of the position measurement. However, Edge teaches in an analogous art, a positioning system in which integrity levels (confidence intervals, para 45, 49, 91) are used in multiple position measurements (Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a confidence/integrity level in order to provide customizable accuracy based on a client, as suggested by Edge.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choi (10602311) disclose locating a wireless user with accuracy settings
Varoglu (9606241) discloses a v2x communication system which utilizes sensor communication to provide location information.
Kim (10091756) discloses use of user devices to help provide location positioning information to another wireless device.
Huberman (2020/0068349) disclose the use of confidence intervals in setting location/maps.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM GEORGE TROST IV whose telephone number is (571)272-7872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7a-4p, Fridays 7a-2p.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
WILLIAM GEORGE TROST IV
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2641
/WILLIAM G TROST IV/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641