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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/19/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 18, and 20 remain pending in this application. Claims 1-20 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/19/2026 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. All previous prior art rejections are overcome in consideration of amendments, however additional prior art rejections are presented below.
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, 3-6, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hockley (US 20040008138 A1), hereinafter Hockley, in view of Kurby (US 20160259060 A1), hereinafter Kurby.
Regarding claim 1, Hockley, as shown below, discloses a network node system comprising the following limitations:
a processor; at least one network interface controller configured to provide access to a network; and 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”):
collect a plurality of pseudorange measurements from a first set of network devices (See at least Figs 1-2, [0052] “The baseband processor 230 can also determine the pseudo ranges to these other sources.”, [0053] “Alternatively, the baseband processor 230 may format each of the pseudo ranges and position information for transmission to an external device.”), 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 Fig. 2 [0039] “The other mobile devices 140 typically also receive signals from the GPS 120 satellites.”, [0042] “the ability of each of the other mobile devices 140 to know its position” See also Fig. 3, [0074]-[0077]);
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 Fig. 1, Items 110, 140, “[0053] “the baseband processor 230 may format each of the pseudo ranges and position information for transmission to an external device” in view of para. [0052] “The mobile device 110 also receives ranging signals from a terrestrial source, such as another mobile device... The baseband processor 230 can also determine the pseudo ranges to these other sources” The Examiner notes that the first and second set of network devices are identical devices See also [0059], [0065]); and
Hockley does not explicitly disclose 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. However, Kurby, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
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 [0047] Fig. 15, “The cooperating receivers first conduct ranging measurements to each other to determine the distance to each other and establish the relative geometry of the cooperating receivers. Then, the cooperating receivers compute pseudoranges and correlation values for each of the GNSS satellites available to them. These pseudoranges/correlation values are sent either to each other or to a central server where they are combined to generate a single solution”, [0049] “Based on these distances, the relative geometry/locations of the receivers is determined”)
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 Kurby with the joint determination system disclosed by Kurby. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously more accurately determine the position (See at least [0024] “a method for a GNSS receiver to more accurately determine the position of the GNSS receiver”).
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Hockley and Kurby, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Hockley additionally discloses
the plurality of pseudorange measurements is collected during one or more time intervals (See at least [0085] “Using the shared information and the range to the first mobile device 410a, the second mobile device 410b now has available two ranges to the two GPS satellites 430a-430b, GPS timing information, and a range to the first mobile device 410a. Because the position of the first mobile device 410a is known, the second mobile device 410b is able to determine its position based on three ranges to known positions, and a timing reference that allows the second mobile device 410b to synchronize an internal time reference to transmitted ranging signals.” The Examiner notes that Hockley teaches gathering of pseudorange measurements during a measurement interval).
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Hockley and Kurby, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Hockley additionally discloses
each pseudorange measurement in the plurality of pseudorange measurements is associated with a timestamp (See at least [0073] “Inter-mobile ranges and satellite ranges that are in different time domains cannot be combined to make an accurate position determination. A mobile device is unable to determine ranges to satellites until a satellite time reference is known” Hockley discloses a time reference as a timestamp).
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Hockley and Kurby, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Hockley additionally 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.”).
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Hockley and Kurby, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Hockley additionally discloses
each pseudorange measurement in the plurality of pseudorange measurements is associated with a quality metric. (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.”).
Regarding claim 12, The combination of Hockley and Kurby, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Hockley additionally 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 [0062] “any of the mobile devices 310a-310c may achieve time synchronization with the GPS satellites in a variety of ways. Once one of the mobile devices, for example 310a, determines GPS timing reference, it may communicate the timing information to all other members of the local group.”).
Regarding claim 13, The combination of Hockley and Kurby, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 12. Hockley additionally 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.”).
Regarding Claim 14, The combination of Hockley and Kurby, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Hockley and Kurby, does not explicitly disclose each network device in the third set of network devices is an anchor network device, and the geolocation logic that is further configured to: 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. However, the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04. Further, Hockley discloses any combination of anchor (fixed location) devices and mobile devices for the system as described in claims 1 and 14. (See at least Fig. 1, Items 130, 140, [0019] “The objects may be GPS or other satellites, wireless communication base stations, or other mobile devices. The shared information may come from a second mobile device, such as a wireless phone, or may come from a plurality of other devices, some of which may be mobile and others of which may be at fixed locations.”). 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 combination of Hockley and Kurby so that additional devices could be used. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve effectiveness by performing operations on multiple additional elements.
Regarding claim 15, The combination of Hockley and Kurby, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 14. Hockley additionally discloses
a number of observable satellites associated with each anchor network device is greater than a first threshold (See at least [0079] “The absolute position of the first mobile device 410a is determined because the first mobile device 410a is in communication with at least four GPS satellites” The Examiner notes that while Hockley describes a mobile device, the fixed location devices/anchor network devices are identical and may be substituted.).
Regarding claim 16, The combination of Hockley and Kurby, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 14. Hockley additionally discloses
a number of ranging links associated with each anchor network device is greater than a second threshold (See at least [0079] “The absolute position of the first mobile device 410a is determined because the first mobile device 410a is in communication with at least four GPS satellites” The Examiner notes that while Hockley describes a mobile device, the fixed location devices/anchor network devices are identical and may be substituted. Additionally, the second threshold value may be equivalent to the first threshold value.).
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 Hockley and Kurby, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 18. Hockley additionally 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 [0062] “any of the mobile devices 310a-310c may achieve time synchronization with the GPS satellites in a variety of ways. Once one of the mobile devices, for example 310a, determines GPS timing reference, it may communicate the timing information to all other members of the local group.”).
Regarding claim 20, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Claims 2 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hockley, in view of Kurby, in further view of Jain (US 20190327628 A1), hereinafter Jain.
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Hockley and Kurby, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Hockley and Kurby does not explicitly disclose 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). However, Jain, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, 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 [0022] “location server 160 may provide assistance data to mobile device 100 to enable or enhance the ability of mobile device 100 to determine its location. […] an estimate of range, for example, based on RSSI or RTT or elapsed time, may be utilized to calculate an approximate range from mobile device 100 to access points and/or base stations and signals from the closest access points and/or base stations may be prioritized” The Examiner notes that Jain teaches an access point as a second set of network devices.).
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 Hockley with the joint determination system disclosed by Kurby 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 9, The combination of Hockley and Kurby, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Hockley and Kurby 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 Hockley with the joint determination system disclosed by Kurby 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 Hockley, Kurby, and Jain, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 9. The combination of Hockley and Kurby 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 Hockley with the joint determination system disclosed by Kurby 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.”).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hockley, in view of Kurby, in further view of Kubo (WO 2006132003 A1), hereinafter Kubo.
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Hockley and Kurby, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 6. The combination of Hockley and Kurby 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 Hockley with the joint determination system disclosed by Kurby 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 Hockley and Kurby, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 6. The combination of Hockley and Kurby 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 Hockley with the joint determination system disclosed by Kurby 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.” ).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hockley, in view of Kurby, in further view of Jain, in further view of Ban (CN 116819575 A), hereinafter Ban.
Regarding claim 11, The combination of Hockley, Kurby, and Jain, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 9. The combination of Hockley, Kurby, 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 Hockley with the joint determination system disclosed by Kurby 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 Hockley and Kurby, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Hockley and Kurby 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 Hockley with the joint determination system disclosed by Kurby 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)”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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, William J. Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights