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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07-26-2023 and 9-10-2025 .The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: par. 17, lines 2-3 read the following "the benchmark .
Appropriate correction is required.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses legal phraseology often used in claims, line 3 " said channels", line 9 "said benchmark", line 12 "said one or more". Applicant is. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 19 refers to an apparatus “wherein said benchmark channels comprise a number of channels” failing to further limit claim 16 as observed in its subordinate clause “identify one or more of said channels as benchmark channels”.
Claim 20 refers to an apparatus “wherein said benchmark channels comprise all channels having a quality above a threshold quality.” Failing to further limit 16 as observed in its subordinate clause “wherein each benchmark channel has a higher quality than that of non-benchmark channels”.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US2003016174A), in view of Davydov et al. (WO-2016122757-A1) hereinafter Davidov and further in view of Manolakos et al. (US-20220078744-A1) hereinafter Manolakos.
Regarding Claim 16, Anderson discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one processor (Anderson, fig. 4 par 34; “schematically depict different aspects of an Applications Processor” ) and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (Anderson, par. 102; each block of RF channels (each at least 1.25 MHz) is passed through serial to parallel converter 10-3-2 and then stored in dual port digital memory), cause the apparatus at least to obtain samples of received positioning information from at least one channel of a plurality of channels, the at least one channel having a band identified by a carrier frequency (Anderson, par. 64; The receiver module 10-2 performs, or is coupled to elements that perform, the following functions: automatic gain control … bandpass filtering to remove potentially interfering signals from outside of the RF band of interest, synthesis of frequencies needed for mixing with the RF signals to create an IF signal that can be sampled, mixing, and analog to digital conversion (ADC) for sampling the RF signals); identify one or more of said channels as benchmark channels, wherein each benchmark channel has a higher quality than that of non-benchmark channels; (Anderson, par 348; the reference signal is received at an antenna port close to the transmitter of interest, and has the highest signal to noise ratio (SNR)). Examiners note, it is inferred that the benchmark channel is based on quality, in this instance that benchmark is the SNR. determine a benchmark channel response representative of channel propagation conditions for at least one of the benchmark channel (Anderson, fig. 9A; Identify received signal(s) that may be subject to interference; provide model for correlation with reference signal). Examiners Note, where the reference signal (benchmark channel) is the previously identified based on SNR; generate a common benchmark channel response based on said benchmark channel responses (Anderson; fig 9B, pars. 337-339; Identifying an interfering signal, modeling the interfering signal, identifying the received signals that may be subject to the interference, and providing the model of the interfering signal to the processor where received data from each of those signals is correlated with the reference signal); estimate channel responses for at least some of the non-benchmark channels, based, at least in part, on the common benchmark channel response (Anderson, fig. 9b, par. 339; Identifying the received signals that may be subject to the interference, and providing the model of the interfering signal to the processor where received data from each of those signals is correlated with the reference signal) determine differences between reconstructed positioning information samples derived using said estimated non-benchmark channel responses and received positioning information samples for the same channels (Anderson, par. 340; Reconstructing the interfering signals at the location where the received data is correlated against the reference data) modify positioning information samples of at least some of the non-benchmark channels based on said determined differences to generate corrected positioning information samples (Anderson; par 341; Cross-correlating the reconstructed interfering signal with the received signal as a function of both time difference and frequency difference to identify and quantify the magnitude of various direct and reflected components present within the received signal); and combine the positioning information samples of said one or more benchmark channels and the one or more corrected positioning information samples to generate combined positioning information samples (Anderson, pars. 342-344; Canceling the interference. This involves, for each of the components identified with magnitude above a specified threshold, applying the appropriate complex weight, frequency shift and time shift to the interfering signal as determined above, and subtracting the interfering signal from the received signal. Repeating this process over multiple interfering signals. This concept applies to all wireless air interfaces (AMPS, IS-136 TDMA, GSM, GPRS, EDGE, IS-95 CDMA, UMTS WCDMA, CDMA 2000, Iden), and can apply to TDOA, AOA, and hybrid TDOA/AOA location systems).
Anderson does not explicitly teach the reconstruction of the reference signal be that of position reference signals, however, Davydov further teaches a telecommunications apparatus to measure OTDOA in LTE-A using PRS signals in a multiple carrier system (Davydov, pg. 4; the signals can be, for example, positioning reference signals). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Anderson to reconstruct interference signals using wireless interfaces with Davydov’s system for user equipment determination using position reference signals to improve the position determination of UEs in a wireless network.
The combination of Anderson and Davydov does not explicitly teach the determination of the channel based on propagation conditions. However, Manolakos further teaches a method to provide an enhanced positioning measurement report using various propagation characteristics of RF signals through multipath channels (Manolakos, par. 40; the receiver may receive multiple “RF signals” corresponding to each transmitted RF signal due to the propagation characteristics of RF signals through multipath channels) by using sounding reference signals to determine UE position (Manolakos, par.53; The UE can then form a transmit beam for sending an uplink reference signal (e.g., sounding reference signal (SRS)) to that base station based on the parameters of the receive beam).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Anderson’s wireless location systems to reconstruct interference signals with Davydov wireless system for UE position determination in carrier aggregation and Manolakos techniques to measure gaps in a wireless system to improve the position determination of a device in a multi-carrier network.
Regarding Claim 17, Anderson teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 16 configured to determine a position estimate based on said combined positioning information samples (Anderson, par. 399; When several consecutive statistically independent location estimates are made for a wireless transmitter that has not changed its position, the location estimates will tend to cluster about the true position. The Wireless Location System combines the location estimates using a weighted average or other similar mathematical construct to determine the improved estimate).
Regarding Claim 18, Anderson further teaches, the apparatus as claimed in claim 16 configured to rank said channels in decreasing order of quality (Anderson par 19; the probability determination could be based on whether the SNR has increased or decreased in a single step, and by an amount greater than a predetermined threshold).
Regarding Claim 19, Anderson teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 16 configured to rank said channels in decreasing order of quality (Anderson par. 332; Then, the SCS 10 can optionally choose the best antenna port with highest SNR either by (i) using the antenna port with the most segments with the highest SNR, (ii) averaging the SNR in all segments and using the antenna port with the highest average SNR, or (iii) using the antenna port with the highest SNR in any one segment), Examiners Note, Anderson’s disclosure is analogous to ranking channels based on highest to lowest SNR.
Regarding Claim 20, The apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein said benchmark channels comprise all channels having a quality above a threshold quality (Anderson, par 348; the reference signal is received at an antenna port close to the transmitter of interest, and has the highest signal to noise ratio (SNR)). Examiners note, it is inferred that the benchmark channel is based on quality, in this instance that benchmark is the SNR.
Regarding Claim 21, Davydov further teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein said apparatus comprises a channel estimator module configured to determine the benchmark channel response for at least one of the benchmark channel (Davydov, fig. 9, pg. 18; The channel estimator 918 processes the selected radio resources with a view to influencing the operation of the equalizer 916).
PNG
media_image1.png
866
857
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 22, Anderson further teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein at least some band-specific non-linearities of said benchmark channel responses are excluded, reduced or compensated for, or a combination thereof, from said common benchmark channel response (Anderson, par. 290; For each baseline, the Wireless Location System calculates a number of parameters that include: the SCS/antenna port used with the reference SCS/antenna in calculating the baseline, the peak, average, and variance in the power of the transmission as received at the SCS/antenna port used … A baseline may be excluded from the location solution if it fails to meet one or more of the threshold criteria).
Regarding Claim 23, Anderson further teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, configured to determine said estimated channel responses for at least some of the non-benchmark channels based, at least in part, on at least some band- specific non-linearities for the respective non-benchmark channels (Anderson, par. 290; For each baseline, the Wireless Location System calculates a number of parameters that include: the SCS/antenna port used with the reference SCS/antenna in calculating the baseline, the peak, average, and variance in the power of the transmission as received at the SCS/antenna port used in the baseline and over the interval used for location processing, the correlation value from the cross-spectra correlation between the SCS/antenna used in the baseline and the reference SCS/antenna, the delay value for the baseline, the multipath mitigation parameters, the residual values remaining after the multipath mitigation calculations, the contribution of the SCS/antenna to the weighted GDOP in the final location solution, and a measure of the quality of fit of the baseline if included in the final location solution).
Regarding Claim 24, Anderson further teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 16 configured to combine the positioning information samples of said one or more benchmark channels and the corrected positioning information samples wherein said combining comprises performing one or more of averaging, superimposition or pruning of said samples (Anderson, par. 332; the SCS 10 can optionally choose the best antenna port with highest SNR either by (i) using the antenna port with the most segments with the highest SNR, (ii) averaging the SNR in all segments and using the antenna port with the highest average SNR, or (iii) using the antenna port with the highest SNR in any one segment).
Regarding Claim 25, Davydov further teaches, the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein said positioning information comprises one of positioning reference signals or sounding reference signals (Davydov, pg. 4; The signals can be, for example, positioning reference signals (PRS) 114 transmitted by one or more than one eNB 10 of the plurality of eNBs 104 to 109)
Regarding Claim 26, Davydov further teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein said channels comprise contiguous intra- band carriers (Davydov, pg. 10; It can be appreciated that the two quasi co-located PRS signals 310 and 312 are transmitted as intra-band contiguous component carriers 314, with the sampling or processing of those intra-band non-contiguous component carriers spanning a bandwidth associated with those component).
Regarding Claim 27, Anderson further teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, further configured to omit positioning information derived from one or more of said non-benchmark channels from said combined positioning information samples dependent on the quality of the respective non-benchmark channels (Anderson par. 290; A baseline may be excluded from the location solution if it fails to meet one or more of the threshold criteria).
Regarding Claim 28, Manolakos further teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein said apparatus is one of: a user equipment of a mobile communication system or a communication node of a mobile communication system (Manolakos, par 36; In general, a UE may be any wireless communication device (e.g., a mobile phone, router, tablet computer, laptop computer, consumer asset locating device, wearable (e.g., smartwatch, glasses, augmented reality (AR)/virtual reality (VR) headset, etc.), vehicle (e.g., automobile, motorcycle, bicycle, etc.), Internet of Things (IoT) device, etc.) used by a user to communicate over a wireless communications network).
Regarding Claim 29, Anderson discloses a method comprising: obtaining samples of received positioning information from at least one channel of a plurality of channels, the at least one channel having a band identified by a carrier frequency; (Anderson, par. 64; The receiver module 10-2 performs, or is coupled to elements that perform, the following functions: automatic gain control … bandpass filtering to remove potentially interfering signals from outside of the RF band of interest, synthesis of frequencies needed for mixing with the RF signals to create an IF signal that can be sampled, mixing, and analog to digital conversion (ADC) for sampling the RF signals); identify one or more of said channels as benchmark channels, wherein each benchmark channel has a higher quality than that of non-benchmark channels; (Anderson, par 348; the reference signal is received at an antenna port close to the transmitter of interest, and has the highest signal to noise ratio (SNR)). Examiners note, it is inferred that the benchmark channel is based on quality, in this instance that benchmark is the SNR.
determine a benchmark channel response representative of channel propagation conditions for at least one of the benchmark channel (Anderson, fig. 9A; Identify received signal(s) that may be subject to interference; provide model for correlation with reference signal). Examiners Note, where the reference signal (benchmark channel) is the previously identified based on SNR; generate a common benchmark channel response based on said benchmark channel responses (Anderson; fig 9B, pars. 337-339; Identifying an interfering signal, modeling the interfering signal, identifying the received signals that may be subject to the interference, and providing the model of the interfering signal to the processor where received data from each of those signals is correlated with the reference signal);
estimate channel responses for at least some of the non-benchmark channels, based, at least in part, on the common benchmark channel response (Anderson, fig. 9b, par. 339; Identifying the received signals that may be subject to the interference, and providing the model of the interfering signal to the processor where received data from each of those signals is correlated with the reference signal)
determine differences between reconstructed positioning information samples derived using said estimated non-benchmark channel responses and received positioning information samples for the same channels (Anderson, par. 340; Reconstructing the interfering signals at the location where the received data is correlated against the reference data) modify positioning information samples of at least some of the non-benchmark channels based on said determined differences to generate corrected positioning information samples (Anderson; par 341; Cross-correlating the reconstructed interfering signal with the received signal as a function of both time difference and frequency difference to identify and quantify the magnitude of various direct and reflected components present within the received signal); and combine the positioning information samples of said one or more benchmark channels and the one or more corrected positioning information samples to generate combined positioning information samples (Anderson, pars. 342-344; Canceling the interference. This involves, for each of the components identified with magnitude above a specified threshold, applying the appropriate complex weight, frequency shift and time shift to the interfering signal as determined above, and subtracting the interfering signal from the received signal. Repeating this process over multiple interfering signals. This concept applies to all wireless air interfaces (AMPS, IS-136 TDMA, GSM, GPRS, EDGE, IS-95 CDMA, UMTS WCDMA, CDMA 2000, Iden), and can apply to TDOA, AOA, and hybrid TDOA/AOA location systems)
Anderson does not explicitly teach the reconstruction of the reference signal be that of position reference signals, however, Davydov further teaches a telecommunications apparatus to measure OTDOA in LTE-A using PRS signals in a multiple carrier system (Davydov, pg. 4; the signals can be, for example, positioning reference signals). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Anderson to reconstruct interference signals using wireless interfaces with Davydov’s system for user equipment determination using position reference signals to improve the position determination of UEs in a wireless network.
The combination of Anderson and Davydov does not explicitly teach the determination of the channel based on propagation conditions. However, Manolakos further teaches a method to provide an enhanced positioning measurement report using various propagation characteristics of RF signals through multipath channels (Manolakos, par. 40; the receiver may receive multiple “RF signals” corresponding to each transmitted RF signal due to the propagation characteristics of RF signals through multipath channels) by using sounding reference signals to determine UE position (Manolakos, par.53; The UE can then form a transmit beam for sending an uplink reference signal (e.g., sounding reference signal (SRS)) to that base station based on the parameters of the receive beam).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Anderson’s wireless location systems to reconstruct interference signals with Davydov wireless system for UE position determination in carrier aggregation and Manolakos techniques to measure gaps in a wireless system to improve the position determination of a device in a multi-carrier network.
Regarding Claim 30, Anderson further teaches the method according to claim 29, further comprising determining a position estimate based on said combined positioning information samples (Anderson, par. 399; When several consecutive statistically independent location estimates are made for a wireless transmitter that has not changed its position, the location estimates will tend to cluster about the true position. The Wireless Location System combines the location estimates using a weighted average or other similar mathematical construct to determine the improved estimate).
Regarding Claim 31, Anderson further teaches the method according to claim 29, further comprising ranking said channels in decreasing order of quality (Anderson par 19; the probability determination could be based on whether the SNR has increased or decreased in a single step, and by an amount greater than a predetermined threshold).
Regarding Claim 32, Davydov further teaches the method according to claim 29, further comprising: determining, by a channel estimator module, the benchmark channel response for at least one of the benchmark channel (Davydov, fig. 9, pg. 18; The channel estimator 918 processes the selected radio resources with a view to influencing the operation of the equalizer 916).
Regarding Claim 33, Anderson further teaches the method according to claim 29, wherein combining the positioning information samples of said one or more benchmark channels and the corrected positioning information samples comprise performing one or more of averaging, superimposition or pruning of said samples (Anderson, par. 332; the SCS 10 can optionally choose the best antenna port with highest SNR either by (i) using the antenna port with the most segments with the highest SNR, (ii) averaging the SNR in all segments and using the antenna port with the highest average SNR, or (iii) using the antenna port with the highest SNR in any one segment).
Regarding Claim 34, Anderson further teaches the method according to claim 29, further comprising: omitting positioning information derived from one or more of said non-benchmark channels from said combined positioning information samples dependent on the quality of the respective non-benchmark channels (Anderson par. 290; A baseline may be excluded from the location solution if it fails to meet one or more of the threshold criteria).
Regarding Claim 35, Anderson discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program instructions that, when executed by an apparatus, cause the apparatus to perform at least the following: obtaining samples of received positioning information from at least one channel of a plurality of channels, the at least one channel having a band identified by a carrier frequency; (Anderson, par. 64; The receiver module 10-2 performs, or is coupled to elements that perform, the following functions: automatic gain control … bandpass filtering to remove potentially interfering signals from outside of the RF band of interest, synthesis of frequencies needed for mixing with the RF signals to create an IF signal that can be sampled, mixing, and analog to digital conversion (ADC) for sampling the RF signals); identify one or more of said channels as benchmark channels, wherein each benchmark channel has a higher quality than that of non-benchmark channels; (Anderson, par 348; the reference signal is received at an antenna port close to the transmitter of interest, and has the highest signal to noise ratio (SNR)). Examiners note, it is inferred that the benchmark channel is based on quality, in this instance that benchmark is the SNR.
determine a benchmark channel response representative of channel propagation conditions for at least one of the benchmark channel (Anderson, fig. 9A; Identify received signal(s) that may be subject to interference; provide model for correlation with reference signal). Examiners Note, where the reference signal (benchmark channel) is the previously identified based on SNR; generate a common benchmark channel response based on said benchmark channel responses (Anderson; fig 9B, pars. 337-339; Identifying an interfering signal, modeling the interfering signal, identifying the received signals that may be subject to the interference, and providing the model of the interfering signal to the processor where received data from each of those signals is correlated with the reference signal);
estimate channel responses for at least some of the non-benchmark channels, based, at least in part, on the common benchmark channel response (Anderson, fig. 9b, par. 339; Identifying the received signals that may be subject to the interference, and providing the model of the interfering signal to the processor where received data from each of those signals is correlated with the reference signal)
determine differences between reconstructed positioning information samples derived using said estimated non-benchmark channel responses and received positioning information samples for the same channels (Anderson, par. 340; Reconstructing the interfering signals at the location where the received data is correlated against the reference data) modify positioning information samples of at least some of the non-benchmark channels based on said determined differences to generate corrected positioning information samples (Anderson; par 341; Cross-correlating the reconstructed interfering signal with the received signal as a function of both time difference and frequency difference to identify and quantify the magnitude of various direct and reflected components present within the received signal); and combine the positioning information samples of said one or more benchmark channels and the one or more corrected positioning information samples to generate combined positioning information samples (Anderson, pars. 342-344; Canceling the interference. This involves, for each of the components identified with magnitude above a specified threshold, applying the appropriate complex weight, frequency shift and time shift to the interfering signal as determined above, and subtracting the interfering signal from the received signal. Repeating this process over multiple interfering signals. This concept applies to all wireless air interfaces (AMPS, IS-136 TDMA, GSM, GPRS, EDGE, IS-95 CDMA, UMTS WCDMA, CDMA 2000, Iden), and can apply to TDOA, AOA, and hybrid TDOA/AOA location systems).
Anderson does not explicitly teach the reconstruction of the reference signal be that of position reference signals, however, Davydov further teaches a telecommunications apparatus to measure OTDOA in LTE-A using PRS signals in a multiple carrier system (Davydov, pg. 4; the signals can be, for example, positioning reference signals). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Anderson to reconstruct interference signals using wireless interfaces with Davydov’s system for user equipment determination using position reference signals to improve the position determination of UEs in a wireless network.
The combination of Anderson and Davydov does not explicitly teach the determination of the channel based on propagation conditions. However, Manolakos further teaches a method to provide an enhanced positioning measurement report using various propagation characteristics of RF signals through multipath channels (Manolakos, par. 40; the receiver may receive multiple “RF signals” corresponding to each transmitted RF signal due to the propagation characteristics of RF signals through multipath channels) by using sounding reference signals to determine UE position (Manolakos, par.53; The UE can then form a transmit beam for sending an uplink reference signal (e.g., sounding reference signal (SRS)) to that base station based on the parameters of the receive beam).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Anderson’s wireless location systems to reconstruct interference signals with Davydov wireless system for UE position determination in carrier aggregation and Manolakos techniques to measure gaps in a wireless system to improve the position determination of a device in a multi-carrier network.
It is noted that any citations to specific pages, columns, lines or figures in the prior art
references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered limiting in any way. A
reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably
suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the
applicant’s disclosure.
Dupray et al. (US8994591B2) Locating a mobile station and applications therefor, 2010-08-23.
Sung et al. (US10652852B2) Method and apparatus for transmitting/receiving positioning reference signal in wireless communication system, 2019-06-20.
Yerramalli et al. (WO 2022076974 A2) MULTI-PORT POSITIONING REFERENCE SIGNAL (PRS) FOR DOWNLINK ANGLE-OF-DEPARTURE (AOD) ESTIMATION, 2022-04-14.
Khoryaev et al. (CN 113711555 A) Downlink (DL) Positioning Reference Signal (PRS) Bandwidth Portion (BWP) Configuration Reference Signal Design and User Equipment (UE) - Based Positioning Enhancement for New Radio (NR) Positioning, 2021-11-26.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO R CAMPERO MIRAMONTES whose telephone number is (571)272-5792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday 0730 - 1730.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at (571) 272-7855. 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.
/MRCM/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649