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 submitted has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the recitation “medium” may include a carrier wave or the like.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkarakaran USPN 2021/0120517 in view of Issakov USPN 2013/0163440.
Consider claim 1, Akkarakaran discloses a method performed by a first location server for handling location data in a wireless communications network, the method comprising: determining a first location of a first relay node, the first location of the first relay node being based on a signaling performed between the first relay node and a first set of network nodes (see figs. 10 and 11: “”Determine Position of IAB Node” “Determine UE Location”; [0183]: “…location server 164/196 may determine or confirm the position of the IAB node 1020, e.g., using the location information received at one or both stages 7 and 9. The location server 164/196 may determine the position of the UE 1130 along with the position of the IAB node 1020, e.g., in an iterative approach or in a joint approach…”); and “…location server 164/196 may determine or confirm the position of the IAB node 1020, e.g., using the location information received at one or both stages 7 and 9. The location server 164/196 may determine the position of the UE 1130 along with the position of the IAB node 1020, e.g., in an iterative approach or in a joint approach…”).
However, Akkarakaran does not explicitly disclose a trigger and based.
In the related field of endeavor, Issakov discloses trigger and based (see fig. 5: 504 and 507; abstract: “…WLS carries out a method including receiving uplink transmissions from the RN, using the uplink transmissions from the RN to compute a location estimate for the RN, and determining a location estimate for the UE based on the location estimate for the RN…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter to improve the location system of Akkarakaran with the trigger based location of Issakov in order to arrive at the claimed subject matter to provide more accuracy in UE position determination.
Consider claim 3 as applied to respective claim, Akkarakaran as modified discloses determining the first location is based on any one or more out of: an identifier of a network node in the first set of network nodes, one or more cell identifiers, CIDs, at least one Angle of Arrival, AoA, value, at least one Angle of Departure, AoD, value, at least one Timing Advance, TA, value, at least one signal quality value, pattern matching, at least one time difference value, and a barometric pressure value (see [0068]: “…positioning procedures such as Observed Time Difference of Arrival (OTDOA), Round Trip Time (RTT), Angle of Arrival (AoA), Angle of Departure (AoD), etc., may be used to determine the position of user equipment (UE). Positioning procedures rely on positioning measurements of DL or UL reference signals that is performed by the UE and/or base stations to determine a distance between a UE and a base station…”).
Consider claim 6 as applied to respective claim, Akkarakaran as modified discloses the one or both of first relay node and the second relay node is any of an Integrated Access and Backhaul, IAB, node or a repeater (see [0071]: “…techniques and procedures that may be associated with determining the position of mobile base stations, such as mobile IAB nodes, may be desirable so that positioning of a UE may be performed…”).
Consider claim 7 as applied to respective claim, Akkarakaran as modified discloses at least one of the first relay node and the second relay node is a mobile relay node (see [0071]: “…techniques and procedures that may be associated with determining the position of mobile base stations, such as mobile IAB nodes, may be desirable so that positioning of a UE may be performed…”).
Examiner Note: See detailed rejection analysis of independent claim 1 for the remaining independent claim rejections.
Consider claim 8, Akkarakaran discloses a first location server configured to handle location data in a wireless communications network, the first location server is configured to: determine a first location of a first relay node, the first location of the first relay node being based on a signaling performed between the first relay node and a first set of network nodes (see figs. 10 and 11; [0183]); and second location of a second network device, wherein the second network device is any of: a first User Equipment, UE, wirelessly connected with the first relay node, or a second relay node, and the second location being 164/196 may determine or confirm the position of the IAB node 1020, e.g., using the location information received at one or both stages 7 and 9. The location server 164/196 may determine the position of the UE 1130 along with the position of the IAB node 1020, e.g., in an iterative approach or in a joint approach…”).
However, Akkarakaran does not explicitly disclose a trigger and based.
In the related field of endeavor, Issakov discloses trigger and based (see fig. 5: 504 and 507; abstract: “…WLS carries out a method including receiving uplink transmissions from the RN, using the uplink transmissions from the RN to compute a location estimate for the RN, and determining a location estimate for the UE based on the location estimate for the RN…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter to improve the location system of Akkarakaran with the trigger based location of Issakov in order to arrive at the claimed subject matter to provide more accuracy in UE position determination.
Consider claim 10 as applied to respective claim, Akkarakaran as modified discloses configured to determine the first location is based on any one or more out of: one or more network node identifiers, one or more cell identifiers, CIDs, at least one Angle of Arrival, AoA, value, at least one Angle of Departure, AoD, value, at least one Timing Advance, TA, value, at least one signal quality value, pattern matching, at least one time difference value, and a barometric pressure value (see [0068]: “…positioning procedures such as Observed Time Difference of Arrival (OTDOA), Round Trip Time (RTT), Angle of Arrival (AoA), Angle of Departure (AoD), etc., may be used to determine the position of user equipment (UE). Positioning procedures rely on positioning measurements of DL or UL reference signals that is performed by the UE and/or base stations to determine a distance between a UE and a base station…”).
Consider claim 13 as applied to respective claim, Akkarakaran as modified discloses one or both of the first relay node and the second relay node is any of an Integrated Access and Backhaul, IAB, node or a repeater (see [0071]: “…techniques and procedures that may be associated with determining the position of mobile base stations, such as mobile IAB nodes, may be desirable so that positioning of a UE may be performed…”).
Consider claim 14 as applied to respective claim, Akkarakaran as modified discloses at least one of the first relay node and the second relay node is a mobile relay node (see [0071]: “…techniques and procedures that may be associated with determining the position of mobile base stations, such as mobile IAB nodes, may be desirable so that positioning of a UE may be performed…”).
Consider claim 15, Akkarakaran disclose a computer storage medium storing a computer program comprising instructions, which when executed by a processor, causes the processor to: determine a first location of a first relay node, the first location of the first relay node being based on a signaling performed between the first relay node and a first set of network nodes (see figs. 10 and 11; [0183]); and device being any of: a first User Equipment, UE, wirelessly connected with the first relay node, or a second relay node, and the second location being 164/196 may determine or confirm the position of the IAB node 1020, e.g., using the location information received at one or both stages 7 and 9. The location server 164/196 may determine the position of the UE 1130 along with the position of the IAB node 1020, e.g., in an iterative approach or in a joint approach…”).
However, Akkarakaran does not explicitly disclose a trigger and based.
In the related field of endeavor, Issakov discloses trigger and based (see fig. 5: 504 and 507; abstract: “…WLS carries out a method including receiving uplink transmissions from the RN, using the uplink transmissions from the RN to compute a location estimate for the RN, and determining a location estimate for the UE based on the location estimate for the RN…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter to improve the location system of Akkarakaran with the trigger based location of Issakov in order to arrive at the claimed subject matter to provide more accuracy in UE position determination.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-5, 9, 11-12, 17-21 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: See respective claim recitation.
Conclusion
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
Examiner should be directed to Fayyaz Alam whose telephone number is (571) 270-1102. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:30am to 7:00pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Oneal Mistry can be reached on (313) 446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) or 703-305-3028.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
Fayyaz Alam
January 4, 2026
/FAYYAZ ALAM/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674