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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application. Claims 1, 18, and 20 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/29/2026 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. The previous prior art rejections are overcome in consideration of amendments, therefore, arguments regarding the previous prior art rejection are moot under the new grounds of rejection presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20180284290 A1), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 20, Lee discloses a method for joint geolocating, comprising:
collecting a plurality of pseudorange measurements from a first set of network devices, each network device in the first set of network devices including a respective global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver for obtaining one or more pseudorange measurements (See at least Figs 17-20, Items 102-108, [0070] “The system and approaches described above may use a set of GNSS receivers in cooperation with each other […] These pseudoranges/correlation values may be sent either to each other or to a central server where they are combined to generate a single solution for the location of the coordinated system.”);
collecting one or more inter-network device ranging measurements from a second set of network devices, the second set of network devices sharing at least one network device with the first set of network devices (See at least Figs 17-20, Items 102-108, [0066] “The second device 116 may be positioned so as to receive ranging signals from a requisite number of commuicnation nodes 102-108 (e.g., at least three for trilateration)”) and including at least one network device excluded from the first set of network devices (See at least Figs. 19-20, [0066] “the second device 116 may be a device previously located using multilateration relative to at least some of the communication nodes 102-108 of the cooperative receiver system 100 […] the second device 116 may in turn generate a ranging signal 134 by way of communication with the first device 114” Lee discloses device 116 belonging to a second set of network devices, which determines location from multilateration, not pseudorange, thereby belonging to the second set of network devices and not the first set of network devices); and
determining, for each network device in a third set of network devices, a geo-position based jointly on at least some of the plurality of pseudorange measurements and at least some of the one or more inter-network device ranging measurements, the third set of network devices including one or more first network devices in the first set of network devices and one or more second network devices in the second set of network devices (See at least [0070] “Then, the cooperating receivers may compute pseudoranges and correlation values for each of the GNSS satellites available to them. These pseudoranges/correlation values may be sent either to each other or to a central server where they are combined to generate a single solution for the location of the coordinated system. This solution is then translated back to each receiver using the known geometry or relationship to each other. The geometry may be rotated and optimized to concur with the best GNSS solution of the group to provide an absolute position for each of the GNSS receivers of the system.”)
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 12-13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20180284290 A1), hereinafter Lee, in view of Hockley (US 20040008138 A1), hereinafter Hockley.
Regarding claim 1, Lee, as shown below, discloses a network node (See at least Figs. 17-21 [0062] “112 may be a mobile device such as a smart phone, cell phone, tablet, laptop computer, or other mobile device that may be disposed in the monitored environment 110.” The Examiner notes that devices 112-116 are interchangeably defined.) comprising the following limitations:
at least one network interface controller configured to provide access to a network (See at least [0063] “the communication nodes 102-108 may facilitate access by the device 112 to a data network.”); and
collect a plurality of pseudorange measurements from a first set of network devices, each network device in the first set of network devices including a respective global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver for obtaining one or more pseudorange measurements (See at least Figs 17-20, Items 102-108, [0070] “The system and approaches described above may use a set of GNSS receivers in cooperation with each other […] These pseudoranges/correlation values may be sent either to each other or to a central server where they are combined to generate a single solution for the location of the coordinated system.”);
collect one or more inter-network device ranging measurements from a second set of network devices, the second set of network devices sharing at least one network device with the first set of network devices (See at least Figs 17-20, Items 102-108, [0066] “The second device 116 may be positioned so as to receive ranging signals from a requisite number of commuicnation nodes 102-108 (e.g., at least three for trilateration)”) and including at least one network device excluded from the first set of network devices (See at least Figs. 19-20, [0066] “the second device 116 may be a device previously located using multilateration relative to at least some of the communication nodes 102-108 of the cooperative receiver system 100 […] the second device 116 may in turn generate a ranging signal 134 by way of communication with the first device 114” Lee discloses device 116 belonging to a second set of network devices, which determines location from multilateration, not pseudorange, thereby belonging to the second set of network devices and not the first set of network devices); and
determine, for each network device in a third set of network devices, a geo- position based jointly on at least some of the plurality of pseudorange measurements and at least some of the one or more inter-network device ranging measurements, the third set of network devices including one or more first network devices in the first set of network devices and one or more second network devices in the second set of network devices (See at least [0070] “Then, the cooperating receivers may compute pseudoranges and correlation values for each of the GNSS satellites available to them. These pseudoranges/correlation values may be sent either to each other or to a central server where they are combined to generate a single solution for the location of the coordinated system. This solution is then translated back to each receiver using the known geometry or relationship to each other. The geometry may be rotated and optimized to concur with the best GNSS solution of the group to provide an absolute position for each of the GNSS receivers of the system.”)
Lee does not explicitly disclose a processor a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises a geolocation logic that is configured to. However, Hockley, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
a processor (See at least Figs 1-2, Items 110, 232-240, [0053] “position determination is distributed among the mobile device 110 and an external device may be used to alleviate processing and memory burdens in the mobile device 110”)
a memory communicatively coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises a geolocation logic that is configured to (See at least Figs 1-2, Items 110, 232-240, [0053] “position determination is distributed among the mobile device 110 and an external device may be used to alleviate processing and memory burdens in the mobile device 110”):
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the network node system disclosed by Lee with the processing system disclosed by Hockley. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase accuracy (See at least [0017] “a system that provides a wireless device with accurate position information, but does not require the device to directly communicate with the minimum number of satellites to independently determine its position.”).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lee and Hockley, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee further discloses
at least one network device in the first set of network devices or the second set of network devices corresponds to an access point (AP) (See at least [0067] “communication nodes 102-108 may comprise a GNSS receiver as well as a communication device such as, for example, an RF communication device operative to transmit and receive data wirelessly utilizing one of a number anyone of a number of different protocols including for example, LTE, WiMAX, Wi-Fi (802.11), or other RF communication protocols.”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lee and Hockley, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee further discloses
the plurality of pseudorange measurements is collected during one or more time intervals (See at least [0077] “The GNSS receiver will pass the top correlation values and time offsets for the top five to ten values across sample time” Lee discloses a sample time as a time interval).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lee and Hockley, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee further discloses
each pseudorange measurement in the plurality of pseudorange measurements is associated with a timestamp (See at least [0077] “The GNSS receiver will pass the top correlation values and time offsets for the top five to ten values across sample time” Lee discloses pseudorange measurements associated with time offsets, which are relative timestamps).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lee and Hockley, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of claim 1. Lee does not disclose each pseudorange measurement in the plurality of pseudorange measurements is associated with a satellite identifier (ID) or a constellation ID. However, Hockley further discloses
each pseudorange measurement in the plurality of pseudorange measurements is associated with a satellite identifier (ID) or a constellation ID (See at least [0066] “the second mobile device 310b communicates to the first mobile device 310a the identity of the GPS satellites 330a-330c with which the second mobile device 310b is in communication.”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the network node system disclosed by Lee with the processing and satellite system disclosed by Hockley. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase accuracy (See at least [0017] “a system that provides a wireless device with accurate position information, but does not require the device to directly communicate with the minimum number of satellites to independently determine its position.”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lee and Hockley, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee further discloses
each pseudorange measurement in the plurality of pseudorange measurements is associated with a quality metric (See at least [0077] “The GNSS receiver will pass the top correlation values and time offsets for the top five to ten values across sample time” Lee discloses pseudorange measurements associated with correlation values, which are a quality metric.).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lee and Hockley, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee further discloses
the plurality of pseudorange measurements is associated with synchronized GNSS receiver clocks at the first set of network devices, and the plurality of pseudorange measurements is associated with a same time-distance offset (See at least [0025] “time synchronization between two cooperating nodes may be established by way of an intermediate device within the monitored environment (e.g., a mobile device within the monitored environment) […] As such, the cooperative receivers may communicate with the intermediate device to synchronize cooperative receivers based on known time of flight from a first cooperative receiver to the intermediate device”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lee and Hockley, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12. Lee does not disclose to determine the geo-position, the geolocation logic is further configured to estimate a GNSS receiver clock error associated with the plurality of pseudorange measurements. However, Hockley further discloses
to determine the geo-position, the geolocation logic is further configured to estimate a GNSS receiver clock error associated with the plurality of pseudorange measurements (See at least [0066] “The mobile device can only determine pseudo ranges that are composed of the true geometric range to the satellite plus a range error due to an unknown clock error, or offset.”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the network node system disclosed by Lee with the processing system disclosed by Hockley. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase accuracy (See at least [0017] “a system that provides a wireless device with accurate position information, but does not require the device to directly communicate with the minimum number of satellites to independently determine its position.”).
Regarding claim 18, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Lee and Hockley, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 18. Lee further discloses
the geolocation logic is further configured to synchronize a GNSS receiver clock over-the-air with at least one other network device (See at least [0025] “time synchronization between two cooperating nodes may be established by way of an intermediate device within the monitored environment”).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Hockley, in further view of Kubo (WO 2006132003 A1), hereinafter Kubo.
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Lee and Hockley, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 6. The combination of Lee and Hockley does not explicitly disclose the geolocation logic is further configured to discard at least one pseudorange measurement based on the quality metric associated with the at least one pseudorange measurement being less than a threshold. However, Kubo, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the geolocation logic is further configured to discard at least one pseudorange measurement based on the quality metric associated with the at least one pseudorange measurement being less than a threshold (See at least [0037] “The difference in carrier power to noise power density ratio (CZNo) in the mobile station is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold, and the delta pseudorange between the satellite and the mobile station calculated by the delta pseudorange calculation means is a predetermined If the threshold value is exceeded, the satellite signal of the satellite can be excluded from the satellite signal for positioning.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the network node system disclosed by Lee with the processing system disclosed by Hockley with the quality system disclosed by Kubo. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously remove noisy and therefore inaccurate data (See at least [0037] “The difference in carrier power to noise power density ratio (CZNo) in the mobile station is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold, and the delta pseudorange between the satellite and the mobile station calculated by the delta pseudorange calculation means is a predetermined If the threshold value is exceeded, the satellite signal of the satellite can be excluded from the satellite signal for positioning.” ).
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Lee and Hockley, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 6. The combination of Lee and Hockley does not explicitly disclose the quality metric includes a carrier-to-noise power density ratio (C/NO) metric or a code-minus-carrier (CMC) metric. However, Kubo, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the quality metric includes a carrier-to-noise power density ratio (C/NO) metric or a code-minus-carrier (CMC) metric (See at least [0037] “The difference in carrier power to noise power density ratio (CZNo) in the mobile station is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold, and the delta pseudorange between the satellite and the mobile station calculated by the delta pseudorange calculation means is a predetermined If the threshold value is exceeded, the satellite signal of the satellite can be excluded from the satellite signal for positioning.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the network node system disclosed by Lee with the processing system disclosed by Hockley with the quality system disclosed by Kubo. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously remove noisy and therefore inaccurate data (See at least [0037] “The difference in carrier power to noise power density ratio (CZNo) in the mobile station is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold, and the delta pseudorange between the satellite and the mobile station calculated by the delta pseudorange calculation means is a predetermined If the threshold value is exceeded, the satellite signal of the satellite can be excluded from the satellite signal for positioning.” ).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Hockley, in further view of Jain (US 20190327628 A1), hereinafter Jain.
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Lee and Hockley, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Lee and Hockley does not explicitly disclose the geolocation logic is further configured to receive ephemeris data associated with the plurality of pseudorange measurements. However, Jain, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the geolocation logic is further configured to receive ephemeris data associated with the plurality of pseudorange measurements (See at least [0025] “A mobile device 100 may use these measurements together with assistance data (e.g. terrestrial almanac data such as a base station and/or access point almanac or GNSS satellite data such as GNSS Almanac and/or GNSS Ephemeris information) received from a location server 160 to determine a location for mobile device 100 or may transfer the measurements to a location server 160 to perform the same determination.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the network node system disclosed by Lee with the processing system disclosed by Hockley with the access point system disclosed by Jain. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve accuracy (See at least [0002] “As the types of WAN base stations, wireless LAN (WLAN) access points and personal area network transceivers increase, strategies to manage and optimize the use of multiple transceivers and to manage search for transceiver signals across multiple frequencies become more important to enable the optimization of hardware usage, search time, and network bandwidth as well as to improving the accuracy of location determination results.”).
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Lee, Hockley and Jain, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 9. The combination of Lee and Hockley does not explicitly disclose the ephemeris data is received via the first set of network devices. However, Jain, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the ephemeris data is received via the first set of network devices (See at least [0025] “A mobile device 100 may use these measurements together with assistance data (e.g. terrestrial almanac data such as a base station and/or access point almanac or GNSS satellite data such as GNSS Almanac and/or GNSS Ephemeris information) received from a location server 160 to determine a location for mobile device 100 or may transfer the measurements to a location server 160 to perform the same determination.” The Examiner notes that the mobile device of Jain is analogous to at least the first device of the claimed invention and receives the ephemeris data).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the network node system disclosed by Lee with the processing system disclosed by Hockley with the access point system disclosed by Jain. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve accuracy (See at least [0002] “As the types of WAN base stations, wireless LAN (WLAN) access points and personal area network transceivers increase, strategies to manage and optimize the use of multiple transceivers and to manage search for transceiver signals across multiple frequencies become more important to enable the optimization of hardware usage, search time, and network bandwidth as well as to improving the accuracy of location determination results.”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Hockley, in further view of Jain, in further view of Ban (CN 116819575 A), hereinafter Ban.
Regarding claim 11, The combination of Lee, Hockley, and Jain, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 9. The combination of Lee, Hockley, and Jain does not explicitly disclose the ephemeris data is received from a precise point positioning (PPP) server. However, Ban, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the ephemeris data is received from a precise point positioning (PPP) server (See at least “the central station and the client respectively obtain the real-time PPP-B2b signal, the pseudorange of the BDS-3 satellite broadcast, the carrier phase observation value and the broadcast ephemeris, and the pseudorange of the low orbit satellite broadcast, the carrier phase observation value and the broadcast ephemeris;”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the network node system disclosed by Lee with the processing system disclosed by Hockley with the access point system disclosed by Jain with the server system disclosed by Ban. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve synchronization and therefore data collection (See at least “the invention performs time synchronization and communication through low orbit satellite assistance, which enhances time synchronization performance in interference, shielding and complex environment.”).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hockley, in view of Kurby, in further view of Reddy (US 20250081141 A1), hereinafter Reddy.
Regarding claim 17, The combination of Lee and Hockley, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Lee and Hockley does not explicitly disclose the one or more inter-network device ranging measurements are based on at least one of fine time measurement (FTM), ultra-wideband (UWB), or high-accuracy distance measurement (HADM). However, Reddy, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the one or more inter-network device ranging measurements are based on at least one of fine time measurement (FTM), ultra-wideband (UWB), or high-accuracy distance measurement (HADM) (See at least [0035] “The target device may obtain its coarse position estimate via beacon signals transmitted by energizers by measuring downlink (DL) reference signal strength indicators (DL-RSSI), measuring high-accuracy distance measurements (HADM)”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the network node system disclosed by Lee with the processing system disclosed by Hockley with the ranging system disclosed by Reddy. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously obtain high accuracy measurements (See at least [0035] “The target device may obtain its coarse position estimate via beacon signals transmitted by energizers by measuring downlink (DL) reference signal strength indicators (DL-RSSI), measuring high-accuracy distance measurements (HADM)”).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Allowance of claims 14-16 is indicated because:
None of the prior art of record teach or suggest the subject matter of dependent claims 14. The prior art of record does not anticipate or render fairly obvious in combination to teach all of the additional limitations of the claimed invention, as best understood within the context of Applicant’s claimed invention as a whole, such as in claim 14, collect one or more additional inter-network device ranging measurements from a fourth set of network devices, the fourth set of network devices sharing one or more network devices with the third set of network devices, the fourth set of network devices including one or more non-anchor network devices; and determine, for each non-anchor network device in the one or more non-anchor network devices, a non-anchor geo-position based at least in part on at least some of the one or more additional inter-network device ranging measurements.
Accordingly, claim 14 is deemed to have allowable subject matter. Claims 15-16 would also be considered allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependence on allowable claims.
Claim 14 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
