DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/17/2026 has been entered.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants' arguments and remarks filed on 07/30/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant's Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 08/17/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicants' amendments overcome objections to the claims.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 10, 13, 19, 23, 27, and 29 have been amended.
Claim 7 has been canceled.
Claims 9, 20, 24, and 30 were previously canceled.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-19, 21-23, 25-29, and 31-32 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks pages 12-16, filed 07/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-8, 10-19, 21-23, 25-29, and 31-32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sundararajan et al. (US 2022/0046577 A1) in view of Zhou et al. (US 2022/0113364 A1), Zhou et al. (US 2022/0357420 A1), and Tullberg et al. (US 2022/0051139 A1).
Applicant arguments regarding Claims 1 and 29: Applicant argues that Sundararajan, paragraph [0204], does not disclose “select, based on the referencing indicator, at least one of: … (b) an adaptation decision from a plurality of adaptation decisions for the reference point positioning signal of the measured set of positioning signals based on the referencing indicator,” as now recited in amended Claim 1. Applicant contends that Sundararajan’s description of presuming the first-arriving cluster to be the LOS data stream is a fixed heuristic rather than a configurable selection from a plurality of adaptation decisions based on a received referencing indicator. This argument is persuasive with respect to the rejection of record. Paragraph [0204] describes a presumption applied to the RF channel response based on arrival order rather than a selection directed by a received indicator from among a plurality of configurable adaptation decisions.
Applicant argues that Sundararajan, paragraph [0211], lists positioning measurement features but that these features are not “adaptation decisions” as claimed. This argument is persuasive with respect to the rejection of record. The measurement features enumerated in paragraph [0211] describe types of processed data representations and do not represent selectable decision criteria for choosing a reference point positioning signal from among a measured set.
Applicant argues that neither Sundararajan nor Tullberg teaches alternative (a) of the newly incorporated limitation “a condition range from a plurality of condition ranges for a reference point positioning signal of the measured set of positioning signals.” This argument is persuasive with respect to the rejection of record. The disclosures of RSRP and SINR in Sundararajan paragraphs [0030] and [0205] describe measurement metrics, and Tullberg’s clustering thresholds in paragraph [0171] are determined by the clustering algorithm rather than selected from a plurality of condition ranges based on a received referencing indicator.
Applicant arguments regarding Claim 19: Applicant argues that the amended limitations of Claim 19 require specific LOS-probability-based indicators not taught by either Sundararajan or Tullberg. Applicant contends that Sundararajan’s disclosures of SINR, RSRP, and a PRS configuration index are not the same as “a first indicator to select a first range of line-of-sight (LOS) probabilities from a plurality of condition ranges” or “a second indicator to select, from a plurality of adaptation decisions … an adaptation decision to select a positioning signal having a largest LOS probability as the reference point positioning signal.” This argument is persuasive with respect to the rejection of record. The references applied in the Final Office Action do not address the specific LOS-probability-based limitations now recited in amended Claim 19, and the prior rejection of Claim 19 is withdrawn.
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, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10-19, 21-23, 25-29, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundararajan et al. (US 2022/0046577 A1) in view of Zhou et al. (US 2022/0113364 A1) and Zhou et al. (US 2022/0357420 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 29,
Claims 1 and 29 are independent claims directed to an apparatus and a method, ignoring the preambles, the body of Claim 29 recites functional elements substantively identical to those of Claim 1.
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches: An apparatus for wireless communication at a wireless positioning device, comprising: ([0212]: “the process 900 may be performed by a UE”; FIG. 3A).
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor, is configured to: ([0254]: a machine learning module “implemented by a processing system, such as processors 332, 384, or 394”; FIG. 3A depicting memory 340 coupled to the processing system 332).
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches: receive a measurement configuration ([0162]: “when a UE receives a PRS configuration index … in the OTDOA assistance data”; [0218]: the base station “transmits, to a UE, at least one neural network function”). The OTDOA assistance data and neural-network function received by the UE constitute the measurement configuration.
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) does not explicitly teach that the measurement configuration comprises a referencing indicator directing how the device selects a reference point positioning signal. Zhou et al. (‘420) teaches: wherein the measurement configuration comprises a referencing indicator ([0066]: “the configuration for a NLOS/LOS indicator to be either hard or soft may be done by the LMF”, and “The configuration may be sent in an RRC message, such as IE ProvideAssistanceData”). The LMF-originated configuration designating the form of the LOS/NLOS indicator is an indicator, carried in the measurement configuration received by the device, that governs how the device references its measurements.
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches: receive a set of positioning signals ([0214]: the data is obtained “by performing a set of positioning measurements on a reference signal for positioning (e.g., PRS)”; [0189]: base stations “broadcast reference RF signals (e.g., Positioning Reference Signals (PRS))”).
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches: measure the set of positioning signals ([0205]: the UE “is configured to measure and report certain pre-defined metrics”; [0011]: the data comprises “raw samples of a reference signal for positioning”).
Regarding select, based on the referencing indicator, at least one of: (a) a condition range from a plurality of condition ranges for a reference point positioning signal of the measured set of positioning signals, or (b) an adaptation decision from a plurality of adaptation decisions for the reference point positioning signal of the measured set of positioning signals based on the referencing indicator. This limitation recites “at least one of: (a) … or (b) ….” Per MPEP § 2111.04, the art need teach only one alternative. Alternative (b) is elected. Alternative (a) is not separately addressed.
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) does not explicitly teach selecting an adaptation decision from a plurality of adaptation decisions for the reference point positioning signal based on a referencing indicator. Zhou et al. (‘364) teaches: select … (b) an adaptation decision from a plurality of adaptation decisions for the reference point positioning signal of the measured set of positioning signals based on the referencing indicator ([0048]: “The exact number of reports for RSTDs/Rx-Tx time differences/path PRS-RSRPs can be configured by the network”; [0050]: the paths around the first detected path “can be sorted as (i) the paths having power within a threshold of that for the first detected path, and (ii) the N paths with the largest power”, and, as a further alternative, “N consecutive paths immediately after the first path in the time of arrival”). Zhou et al. (‘364) thus discloses a plurality of distinct, network-configured decision rules - a power-threshold rule, a largest-power rule, and a time-of-arrival rule - each governing how signals are treated relative to the first detected path, from which one is selected by the network’s configuration. These decision rules constitute a plurality of adaptation decisions for the reference point positioning signal. The network’s configuration that designates which sorting criterion the device applies is the referencing indicator.
Regarding select the reference point positioning signal from the measured set of positioning signals based on at least one of the selected condition range or the selected adaptation decision, wherein the reference point positioning signal comprises a timing reference point, a power reference point, or a phase reference point. The phrase “at least one of the selected condition range or the selected adaptation decision” is an alternative recitation; consistent with the election above, the selected adaptation decision is elected. The phrase “a timing reference point, a power reference point, or a phase reference point” is a further “or” statement; per MPEP § 2111.04, the timing reference point is elected and the power and phase alternatives are not separately addressed.
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) does not explicitly teach selecting the reference point positioning signal on the basis of a selected adaptation decision. Zhou et al. (‘420) teaches: select the reference point positioning signal from the measured set of positioning signals based on … the selected adaptation decision, wherein the reference point positioning signal comprises a timing reference point ([0067]: a UE “may be configured by the LMF with a timing window per TRP for searching the DL-PRS signal corresponding to a first arrival LOS path”, where “The measurement window may correspond to an uncertainty range for a first-arriving signal along a LOS path”). The DL-PRS signal so identified is selected from the measured signals and supplies the arrival-time datum against which the remaining measurements are expressed - a timing reference point.
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches: reference the measured set of positioning signals based on the selected reference point positioning signal ([0194]: determining the position of the UE “using the OTDOAs and/or RSTDs between RF signals received from pairs of network nodes”; [0191]: the UE measures “RSTDs between reference RF signals received from pairs of network nodes”). The reference signal time difference expresses each measured signal as a time value relative to the selected reference, thereby referencing the measured set to the selected reference point positioning signal.
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches: output the referenced, measured set of positioning signals to a positioning model ([0215]: the UE “processes the positioning measurement data into a respective set of positioning measurement features based on the at least one neural network function”; [0223]: the features comprise “a compressed representation of an initial set of positioning measurements measured at the UE with respect to a reference signal for positioning”). The neural-network function is the positioning model, and the reference-relative measurement features are output to it.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Sundararajan et al.’s (‘577) wireless positioning device with the network-configured LOS/NLOS indicator and LOS-based selection criteria of Zhou et al. (‘364) and Zhou et al. (‘420).The motivation arises from Sundararajan et al.’s (‘577) own express statement of the problem. Sundararajan et al. (‘577) states that accurate position determination requires the UE to “measure the reference RF signals received over the LOS path” ([0194]), and that the beam of interest for position estimation is the one exciting the LOS path rather than the one with the greatest signal strength ([0202]). Sundararajan et al. (‘577) further acknowledges that the LOS stream may pass through an obstruction and be significantly degraded, arriving weaker than a reflected NLOS stream ([0201]). Sundararajan et al.’s (‘577) own mechanism for identifying the LOS stream is a bare presumption that the first-arriving cluster is the LOS stream ([0204]) - a rule that Sundararajan et al. (‘577) itself shows to be unreliable in the very obstruction scenario it describes. A PHOSITA reading Sundararajan et al. (‘577) would therefore recognize a concrete deficiency in the reference-selection mechanism and would look to the art for a more reliable means of identifying which measured positioning signal corresponds to the LOS path. Zhou et al. (‘364) addresses degradation of positioning accuracy “due to the impact of multipath caused by NLOS signals” ([0042]) by having the device quantify and report an LOS/NLOS indicator per PRS resource ([0043-0044]). Zhou et al. (‘420) supplies the network-side counterpart, configuring the indicator from the LMF ([0066]) and using it so that the location server “may select some of the reported measurements, which may be more likely to be LOS paths” ([0065]). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success. All three references operate on the same signals (3GPP NR downlink PRS), within the same network architecture (UE, TRP/gNB, and LMF/location server), and within the same LPP/NRPPa assistance-data and measurement-reporting framework. Sundararajan et al. (‘577) already receives a network-originated measurement configuration carried in OTDOA assistance data ([0162]) and already reports processed measurement features back to a network component ([0216]). Zhou et al.’s (‘420) configuration is carried in the analogous IE ProvideAssistanceData ([0066]), and Zhou et al.’s (‘364) indicator is carried in the analogous SignalMeasurementInformation IE ([0045]). Adding one further configuration field to a configuration message the device already receives, and one further reported quantity to a report the device already sends, yields the predictable result of a more reliably chosen LOS reference. No change in the operating principle of any reference is required.
Regarding Claim 29, the claim is substantially the same as claim 1 and thus, the same cited sections and rationale as corresponding apparatus claim 1 is applied.
Regarding Claim 2, Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, and further teaches: transmit the referenced measured set of positioning signals to a wireless device for the positioning model ([0216]: the UE “reports the processed set of positioning measurement features to a network component”).
Regarding Claim 5, Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches the apparatus of Claim 1. Claim 5 recites two alternatives joined by “or”; per MPEP § 2111.04 only one need be taught. Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches: calculate a positioning output using the positioning model based on the referenced measured set of positioning signals ([0020]: “determining a positioning estimate for the UE”; [0194]: “determine the position of the UE … using the OTDOAs and/or RSTDs”). The first alternative - training the positioning model based on a set of labels - is not reached.
Regarding Claim 6, Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches the apparatus of Claim 5. The referencing indicator was addressed in Claim 1.
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) further teaches: select the positioning model from a plurality of positioning models based on the referencing indicator ([0012]: “the at least one neural network function comprises a plurality of neural network functions that are each configured to facilitate positioning measurement data processing at the UE of a single positioning measurement type or a group of positioning measurement types”). One of the plurality of neural network functions is selected according to the measurement type designated by the received configuration.
Claim 7 is canceled.
Regarding Claim 8, Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches the apparatus of Claim 5, including a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor ([0218]; FIG. 3A depicting transceivers 310, 320), and further teaches: transmit, via the transceiver, the calculated positioning output ([0216]: reporting the processed set of features to a network component).
Claim 9 is canceled.
Regarding Claim 10, Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches the apparatus of Claim 1. Claim 10 recites three alternatives joined by “or,” each conditioned on the reference point positioning signal “satisfying” a criterion. Per MPEP § 2111.04(II), these are contingent limitations - the recited conditions need not necessarily occur - and only one “or” alternative need be taught. The second alternative is elected, consistent with the election of the adaptation decision in Claim 1.
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) does not explicitly teach selecting the reference point positioning signal in response to satisfaction of an adaptation decision. Zhou et al. (‘364) teaches: select the reference point positioning signal from the measured set of positioning signals in response to the reference point positioning signal satisfying the adaptation decision ([0041]: “If the moving sum is larger than a pre-calculated threshold, the tap corresponding to PDP as detected as first arrival path”; [0050]). The first-arrival tap is designated the reference only upon satisfaction of the threshold criterion - i.e., in response to the positioning signal satisfying the adaptation decision.
The first and third alternatives, being contingent and non-elected, are not separately addressed.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine Sundararajan et al. (‘577) with Zhou et al. (‘364) for this limitation for the same reasons set forth in the motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success provided in the rejection of Claim 1 above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 11, Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches the apparatus of Claim 10. Claim 11 recites a list joined by “; or any combination thereof”; per MPEP § 2111.04 only one alternative need be taught. The first alternative is elected.
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) does not teach a range of line-of-sight probabilities or an indicator to select such a range. Zhou et al. (‘364) teaches: a first range of line-of-sight (LOS) probabilities, wherein the measurement configuration comprises a first indicator to select the first range of LOS probabilities ([0043]: the soft-decision indicator is “the probability of the first detected path being LOS, or the probability of the first detected path being NLOS”, and “the reported LOS/NLOS indicators can be a certain set of discrete values between 0 and 1, e.g., values from the set {0, 0.1, 0.2 … 0.9, 1}”; [0045]: “a new information element (IE) may be added … to configure the LOS/NLOS indicator reported from the UE”, where “The LOS/NLOS indicator can take any value between zero and one”). Each discrete value in the disclosed set delimits a range of LOS probabilities, and the configuring IE is the indicator by which one such range is selected.
The remaining alternatives are not separately addressed.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine Sundararajan et al. (‘577) with Zhou et al. (‘364) for this limitation for the same reasons set forth in the motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success provided in the rejection of Claim 1 above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 12, Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches the apparatus of Claim 10. Claim 12 recites a list joined by “; or any combination thereof”; only one alternative need be taught. The first alternative is elected.
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) does not teach an adaptation decision selecting a largest LOS probability, nor an indicator to select it. Zhou et al. (‘420) teaches: a largest line-of-sight (LOS) probability, wherein the measurement configuration comprises a first indicator to select the largest LOS probability ([0065]: with a soft-decision indication, “the reported RSTD measurements may be sorted according to a particular metric at the location server”, and “The location server may select some of the reported measurements, which may be more likely to be LOS paths”; [0066]: the configuration of the indicator “may be done by the LMF” and “may be sent in an RRC message, such as IE ProvideAssistanceData”). Sorting by LOS likelihood and taking the measurements most likely to be LOS is a selection of the signal having the largest LOS probability. The LMF-originated configuration is the indicator.
The remaining alternatives are not separately addressed.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine Sundararajan et al. (‘577) with Zhou et al. (‘420) for this limitation for the same reasons set forth in the motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success provided in the rejection of Claim 1 above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 13, Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches the apparatus of Claim 10. Claim 13 recites a contingent limitation - “in response to the reference point positioning signal satisfying the condition range” - which, per MPEP § 2111.04(II), need not necessarily occur. To the extent weight is given:
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) does not teach selecting an adaptation decision from a plurality of adaptation decisions indicated by the measurement configuration. Zhou et al. (‘364) teaches: select the adaptation decision from the plurality of adaptation decisions in response to the reference point positioning signal satisfying the condition range, wherein the measurement configuration comprises an indicator of the plurality of adaptation decisions ([0050]: the alternative sorting rules - “the paths having power within a threshold”, “the N paths with the largest power”, and paths sorted by time of arrival; [0048]: those reports being “configured by the network”).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine Sundararajan et al. (‘577) with Zhou et al. (‘364) for this limitation for the same reasons set forth in the motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success provided in the rejection of Claim 1 above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 14, Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches the apparatus of Claim 1.
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) does not explicitly teach transmitting an indicator of supported referencing attributes before reception of the measurement configuration. Zhou et al. (‘364) teaches: transmit an indicator of supported referencing attributes before the reception of the measurement configuration ([0047]: “the UE may first indicate to the network whether it has the capability to perform the LOS/NLOS detection. Such a capability indicator may be included in the UE capability reporting”). The capability report precedes and informs the network’s configuration of the indicator.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine Sundararajan et al. (‘577) with Zhou et al. (‘364) for this limitation for the same reasons set forth in the motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success provided in the rejection of Claim 1 above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 15, Sundararajan et al. (‘577) in view of Zhou et al. (‘364) and Zhou et al. (‘420) teaches the apparatus of Claim 14. Claim 15 recites “at least one of”; only one alternative need be taught. The timing reference type is elected.
Zhou et al. (‘364) teaches a timing reference type ([0040]: the UE determines whether “the first peak (which may also be referred to as the ‘first detected path’) is highest” and whether its rise time is sharp or gradual, so as to classify the first detected path as LOS or NLOS; [0041]: “If the moving sum is larger than a pre-calculated threshold, the tap corresponding to PDP as detected as first arrival path”). The supported attribute is the device’s capability to determine the first-arrival timing reference. The power and phase alternatives are not separately addressed.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine Sundararajan et al. (‘577) with Zhou et al. (‘364) for this limitation for the same reasons set forth in the motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success provided in the rejection of Claim 1 above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 16, Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, and further teaches: the measurement configuration comprises a plurality of sets of referencing attributes ([0162]: the OTDOA assistance data “includes assistance data for a reference cell, and a number of neighbor cells”; [0191]: “configuration information for reference RF signals transmitted by each neighbor cell”), select a set of referencing attributes from the plurality of sets of referencing attributes ([0164]: the UE “determine[s] the timing of the PRS occasions of the reference and neighbor cells”), and select the reference point positioning signal from the measured set of positioning signals based on the selected set of referencing attributes ([0162], [0164]).
Regarding Claim 17, Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches the apparatus of Claim 1. Claim 17 recites “or”; only one alternative need be taught. Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches a set of positioning reference signals (PRSs) ([0189]: “Positioning Reference Signals (PRS)”; [0214]). The SRS alternative is not separately addressed.
Regarding Claim 18, Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches the apparatus of Claim 1. Claim 18 recites “at least one of”; only one alternative need be taught. Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches a user equipment (UE) ([0212]: “the process 900 may be performed by a UE”). The base station and TRP alternatives are not separately addressed.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 is an independent claim directed to an apparatus at a network entity.
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches: An apparatus for wireless communication at a network entity, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor is configured to: ([0213]: the neural network function may be “generated by a network entity (e.g., network entity 306, such as an LMF)”; [0254]: “processors 332, 384, or 394”; FIG. 3C).
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches: configure a measurement configuration for a set of positioning signals and a set of positioning models at a wireless positioning device ([0191]: a location server “may send assistance data to the UE 604 that includes … configuration information for reference RF signals”; [0012]: “a plurality of neural network functions”).
Regarding wherein the measurement configuration comprises a referencing indicator comprising at least one of: (1) a first indicator to select a first range of line-of-sight (LOS) probabilities from a plurality of condition ranges for a reference point positioning signal of a measured set of positioning signals corresponding to the set of positioning signals, or (2) a second indicator to select, from a plurality of adaptation decisions for the reference point positioning signal of the measured set of positioning signals, an adaptation decision to select a positioning signal having a largest LOS probability as the reference point positioning signal:
This limitation recites “at least one of: (1) … or (2) ….” Per MPEP § 2111.04, only one alternative need be taught. Alternative (2) is elected. Alternative (1) is not separately addressed.
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) does not teach a plurality of adaptation decisions for a reference point positioning signal or an indicator selecting an adaptation decision that designates the signal having the largest LOS probability as the reference point. Zhou et al. (‘364) teaches a second indicator to select … a plurality of adaptation decisions for the reference point positioning signal of the measured set of positioning signals ([0050]: the alternative rules by which paths are sorted relative to the first detected path - “the paths having power within a threshold of that for the first detected path, and (ii) the N paths with the largest power”; and, as a further alternative, “N consecutive paths immediately after the first path in the time of arrival”; [0048]: those reports being “configured by the network”).
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) does not teach, but Zhou et al. (‘420) teaches a second indicator to select … an adaptation decision to select a positioning signal having a largest LOS probability as the reference point positioning signal ([0066]: “the configuration for a NLOS/LOS indicator to be either hard or soft may be done by the LMF”, sent in “IE ProvideAssistanceData”; [0065]: “The location server may select some of the reported measurements, which may be more likely to be LOS paths”). Sorting by LOS likelihood and selecting the measurements most likely to be LOS paths is a selection of the positioning signal having the largest LOS probability as the reference point. The LMF-originated configuration is the second indicator.
Regarding wherein the reference point positioning signal comprises a timing reference point, a power reference point, or a phase reference point: this is an “or” statement; the timing reference point is elected. Zhou et al. (‘420) teaches a timing reference point ([0067]: the UE is configured “with a timing window per TRP for searching the DL-PRS signal corresponding to a first arrival LOS path”). The power and phase alternatives are not separately addressed.
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches: transmit the measurement configuration ([0218]: the base station “transmits, to a UE, at least one neural network function”; [0191]: “send assistance data to the UE”).
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches: receive a set of positioning signal measurements reference based on the reference point positioning signal ([0022]: “receiving, from the UE, a first respective set of respective set of positioning measurement features”; [0223]: the features being measured “with respect to a reference signal for positioning”).
Regarding wherein the reference point positional signal is selected from the measured set of positioning signals based on at least one of the first range of LOS probabilities or the adaptation decision indicated by the referencing indicator: this is an “at least one of … or” recitation; consistent with the election above, the adaptation decision is elected. Sundararajan et al. (‘577) does not teach selection of the reference on the basis of an LOS-probability-based adaptation decision. Zhou et al. (‘420) teaches this limitation ([0065]: measurements “sorted according to a particular metric at the location server”, from which the server selects those “more likely to be LOS paths”; [0066]: the configuration being done by the LMF and sent in IE ProvideAssistanceData).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into Sundararajan et al.’s (‘577) network entity the LOS/NLOS indicator configuration and LOS-based reference-signal selection criteria of Zhou et al. (‘364) and Zhou et al. (‘420). The motivation arises from Sundararajan et al.’s (‘577) own express recognition that accurate position determination requires measurement of reference RF signals received over the LOS path ([0194]: “the UE 604 needs to measure the reference RF signals received over the LOS path (or the shortest NLOS path where an LOS path is not available)”). Sundararajan et al. (‘577) further acknowledges that the beam of interest for positioning is the one exciting the LOS path and not the strongest beam ([0202]), and that the LOS stream may be significantly degraded by obstructions and arrive weaker than a reflected NLOS stream ([0201]). The only mechanism Sundararajan et al. (‘577) provides for identifying the LOS stream is a presumption that the first-arriving cluster is the LOS data stream ([0204]) — a presumption that Sundararajan et al.’s (‘577) own obstruction scenario shows to be unreliable. A PHOSITA reading Sundararajan et al. (‘577) would therefore recognize a concrete need for the network entity to have a more reliable, configurable means of determining which measured positioning signal corresponds to the LOS path when computing a position estimate. Zhou et al. (‘364) addresses the same problem from the UE reporting side, stating that positioning accuracy may be “significantly degraded due to the impact of multipath caused by NLOS signals” ([0042]), and provides LOS/NLOS indicators per PRS resource ([0043-0044]) together with a plurality of network-configured sorting criteria by which paths are evaluated relative to the first detected path ([0048], [0050]). Zhou et al. (‘420) addresses the same problem from the network entity side, stating that “not all NLOS conditions are equal, and the LMF may have an advantage in selecting reported measurements that correspond to better channel conditions” ([0065]). Zhou et al. (‘420) provides the network entity with the ability to configure the indicator ([0066]: “the configuration for a NLOS/LOS indicator to be either hard or soft may be done by the LMF”) and to select measurements that are “more likely to be LOS paths, or assign different weights to all the measurements according to the associated NLOS conditions for location calculation” ([0065]). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success. All three references operate on the same 3GPP NR downlink PRS signals, within the same network architecture (UE, TRP/gNB, and LMF/location server), and within the same LPP/NRPPa assistance-data and measurement-reporting framework. Sundararajan et al.’s (‘577) network entity already transmits assistance data and a measurement configuration to the UE ([0191], [0218]) and already receives processed positioning measurement features from the UE ([0022], [0223]). Zhou et al.’s (‘420) LMF-originated indicator configuration is carried in the same IE ProvideAssistanceData ([0066]) that Sundararajan et al.’s (‘577) network entity already sends, and the LOS/NLOS indicators Zhou et al. (‘364) reports are carried in the analogous SignalMeasurementInformation IE ([0045]) that Sundararajan et al.’s (‘577) network entity already receives. Incorporating the LOS/NLOS indicator configuration into the measurement configuration that the network entity already transmits and using the reported indicators to select measurements most likely to correspond to the LOS path yields predictable results of a more accurate position estimate. No change in the operating principle of any reference is required
Claim 20 is canceled.
Regarding Claim 21, Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches the apparatus of Claim 19, including a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor ([0218]; FIG. 3B).
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) does not teach receiving a referencing indicator associated with the reference point positioning signal. Zhou et al. (‘364) teaches: receive, via the transceiver, the referencing indicator associated with the reference point positioning signal ([0043]: “the UE may report, to the location server, a LOS/NLOS indicator corresponding to each received PRS signal”; [0044]: the indicators being “associated with the PRS resources or the PRS measurements”).
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches: calculate a positioning output using a positioning model based on the received set of positioning signal measurements … wherein the set of positioning models comprises the positioning model ([0020]: “determining a positioning estimate for the UE”; [0012]: the plurality of neural network functions).
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) does not teach calculating the positioning output on the basis of the referencing indicator. Zhou et al. (‘420) teaches this element ([0065]: the server may “assign different weights to all the measurements according to the associated NLOS conditions for location calculation”, and the “soft-value LOS/NLOS indicators may be input into optimization algorithms”). The referencing indicator is used as an input to the positioning calculation.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine Sundararajan et al. (‘577) with Zhou et al. (‘364) and Zhou et al. (‘420) for these limitations for the same reasons set forth in the motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success provided in the rejection of Claim 19 above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 22, Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches the apparatus of Claim 21. Claim 22 recites “at least one of”; only one alternative need be taught. Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches a positioning model ID associated with the reference point positioning signal ([0012]: the plurality of neural network functions, each identified with the measurement type it serves). The remaining alternatives are not separately addressed.
Regarding Claim 23, Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches the apparatus of Claim 19.
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) does not teach receiving a referencing indicator associated with the reference point positioning signal. Zhou et al. (‘364) teaches: receive the referencing indicator associated with the reference point positioning signal ([0043]: the LOS/NLOS indicator corresponding to each received PRS signal; [0044]: indicators “associated with the PRS resources or the PRS measurements”).
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches: train a positioning model based on the received set of positioning signal measurements and the referencing indicator, wherein the set of positioning models comprises the positioning model ([0213]: the historical measurement procedures “may be filtered based on one or more criteria … and input as training data into a machine-learning algorithm which outputs a series of offsets, algorithms and/or processing rules”; [0254]: the machine learning module “iteratively analyze[s] training input data”; [0012]: the plurality of neural network functions). Sundararajan et al.’s (‘577) network entity trains the neural network function on measurement data filtered by criteria, and the referencing indicator addressed above is such a criterion.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine Sundararajan et al. (‘577) with Zhou et al. (‘364) for this limitation for the same reasons set forth in the motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success provided in the rejection of Claim 19 above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 24 is canceled.
Regarding Claim 25, Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches the apparatus of Claim 19. Claim 25 recites “at least one of”; only one alternative need be taught. Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches a positioning model ID ([0012]: “a plurality of neural network functions”, each identified). The remaining alternatives are not separately addressed.
Regarding Claim 26, Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches the apparatus of Claim 19. Claim 26 recites a list joined by “; or any combination thereof”; only one alternative need be taught. Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches a positioning model ID ([0012]). The remaining alternatives are not separately addressed.
Regarding Claim 27, Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches the apparatus of Claim 19. Claim 27 recites a list joined by “; or any combination thereof”; only one alternative need be taught. The twelfth indicator is elected.
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) does not teach a measurement configuration comprising an indicator to select a largest power. Zhou et al. (‘364) teaches: a twelfth indicator to select a largest power ([0050]: the paths in the reporting “can be sorted as … (ii) the N paths with the largest power”; [0048]: “The exact number of reports … can be configured by the network”). The network’s configuration is the indicator by which the largest-power criterion is selected.
The remaining indicators are not separately addressed.
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine Sundararajan et al. (‘577) with Zhou et al. (‘364) for this limitation for the same reasons set forth in the motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success provided in the rejection of Claim 19 above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 28, Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches the apparatus of Claim 19.
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) does not teach receiving an indicator of supported referencing attributes. Zhou et al. (‘364) teaches: receive an indicator of supported referencing attributes ([0047]: “the UE may first indicate to the network whether it has the capability to perform the LOS/NLOS detection. Such a capability indicator may be included in the UE capability reporting”).
Zhou et al. (‘364) teaches: select a set of referencing attributes from the supported referencing attributes, wherein the supported referencing attributes comprise at least one of a timing reference type, a power referencing type, or a phase referencing type ([0040-0041]: the UE determines whether “the first peak (which may also be referred to as the ‘first detected path’) is highest” and whether its rise time is sharp or gradual). This is an “at least one of” recitation; the timing reference type is elected - the first arrival-path determination of [0040-0041]. The power and phase alternatives are not separately addressed.
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) does not teach configuring the referencing indicator based on the selected attributes. Zhou et al. (‘420) teaches: configure the referencing indicator based on the selected set of referencing attributes ([0066]: the LMF configures the indicator as hard or soft and sends the configuration in “IE ProvideAssistanceData”).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine Sundararajan et al. (‘577) with Zhou et al. (‘364) and Zhou et al. (‘420) for these limitations for the same reasons set forth in the motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success provided in the rejection of Claim 19 above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 30 is canceled.
Regarding Claims 31 and 32, Claims 31 and 32 depend from Claims 1 and 19, respectively, and recite the same additional limitation. They are grouped, and the analysis is presented for Claim 31.
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches the apparatus of Claim 1, and further teaches: reference each measured positioning signal of the measured set of positioning signals as a value from the selected reference point positioning signal ([0191]: “RSTDs between reference RF signals received from pairs of network nodes”; [0194]: “determine the position of the UE … using the OTDOAs and/or RSTDs”). The reference signal time difference expresses each measured neighbor-cell positioning signal as a time-difference value relative to the selected reference cell positioning signal.
Regarding Claim 32, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 31, applied to the network entity’s reception of the referenced measurements ([0022], [0223]).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundararajan et al. (US 2022/0046577 A1) in view of Zhou et al. (US 2022/0113364 A1), Zhou et al. (US 2022/0357420 A1), and Tullberg et al. (US 2022/0051139 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches the apparatus of Claim 2.
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) does not teach selecting a referencing method from a plurality of referencing methods based on the measured set of positioning signals. Sundararajan et al. (‘577) selects among its plurality of neural network functions according to the configured measurement type ([0012]), not according to the measured data. Tullberg et al. (‘139) teaches: select a referencing method from a plurality of referencing methods based on the measured set of positioning signals ([0171]: “Other clustering techniques may be used as well, for example, the Expectation Maximization (EM) algorithm”, and “For each new data sample, the closest cluster centroid is determined”). Tullberg et al. (‘139) discloses a plurality of methods by which measured samples are referenced to a centroid and determines per measured sample which centroid governs.
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches: wherein the measurement configuration comprises an indicator of the plurality of referencing methods ([0162]: the UE “receives a PRS configuration index” in the OTDOA assistance data; [0012]: “a plurality of neural network functions”). Sundararajan et al.’s (‘577) measurement configuration carries an indicator/index designating which of a plurality of processing methods the device applies.
Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches: transmit the referencing indicator associated with the selected referencing method ([0216]: the UE “reports the processed set of positioning measurement features to a network component”).
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select among Tullberg et al.’s (‘139) plurality of data-driven referencing methods in Sundararajan et al.’s (‘577) device. Both references address the same problem of reducing the volume of wireless-device measurement data that must be conveyed to a network node for machine-learning purposes. Sundararajan et al. (‘577) states that processing raw measurement data into features serves “reducing the amount of positioning measurement data to be transported over a physical channel between the UE and the gNB” ([0211]). Tullberg et al. (‘139) states that “it is not possible to transmit all training data in its raw form to one or more other network nodes” because doing so “may take too much communication resources” ([0011]). A PHOSITA seeking to compress Sundararajan et al.’s (‘577) measurement data would naturally consult art directed to compressing machine-learning training data for transmission over the same air interface. Selecting among Tullberg et al.’s (‘139) referencing methods according to the measured data itself and indicating that plurality through the measurement configuration Sundararajan et al.’s (‘577) device already receives ([0162]) and leads to predictable results. Success would reasonably have been expected because both references process wireless-device measurement data for machine learning at or for a network node, using conventional processing hardware (Sundararajan et al. (‘577) [0254]; Tullberg et al. (‘139) [0157]).
Regarding Claim 4, the apparatus of Claim 3 is rejected as set forth above. Claim 4 recites a list joined by “; or any combination thereof”; only one alternative need be taught. Sundararajan et al. (‘577) teaches: a positioning model ID associated with the selected referencing method ([0012]: “a plurality of neural network functions”, each identified). The remaining alternatives are not separately addressed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REMASH R GUYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-0115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Resha H Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/REMASH R GUYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights