DETAILED ACTION
RCE
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 allowance. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/07/2026 has been entered.
The IDS has been considered by the examiner.
The specification and drawings have been accepted by the examiner.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 9, 11-12 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (US 2023/0134028) in view of Svennebring (US 20230308199) and further in view of Patil (US 20150109961, IDS submitted on 07/07/2026).
Referring to claim 1:
Dong discloses a wireless node configured to store computer-executable instructions; to cause the wireless node (FIG. 1,-2B, Par. 183, “ memory, and an executable program stored on the memory and capable of being run by the processor”, note that the base station performs high level electrical communications, thus, it must have a memory and a processor) and cause the apparatus to:
participate in formation of a network cluster (FIG. 1-2B, 6, Abstract and Par. 34, 36, “the base stations 12 and the terminals 11 can be connected to each other via wireless air interfaces.”, “Several base stations 12 are connected to the network management devices 13 respectively”, note that figure 1 depicts a network cluster that includes a base station several devices connected to the base station, and figure 2A and 2B depict the base station forming a network by providing relaying capability between the devices via the base station, thus, the base station participates in the formation of the network cluster);
receive, via the at least one transceiver, location information for one or more other wireless nodes, based on relative location for at least some of the other wireless nodes (Par. 3, 5, Par. 38, 69, “A network can initiate positioning of the UE to obtain UE position information, and the UE can also initiate a positioning request to the network to obtain the position information of the UE itself,”, “receiving relative position positioning indication sent by a core network, where the relative position positioning indication is for determining a relative position between a first UE and a second UE”, note the relative position between a first UE and a second UE is equivalent to location information for one or more other wireless nodes, based on relative location measurements for at least some of the other wireless nodes. Here the first UE and the second UE is equivalent to one or more other wireless nodes); and
transmit, and the at least one transceiver, a report, the report being based on the location information (Par. 69, 6, “Sending the resource configuration based on the relative position positioning indication”, “a first UE … receiving resource configuration sent by an access device”, note that “Sending the resource configuration based on the relative position positioning indication” is equivalent to output, for transmission a report based on the location information. With regard to wireless wide area network (WWAN), note that the network depicted in figures 1 and described in paragraphs 30, 34-36 describe a cellular network including a RAN and management system 13, which characterizes a Wireless WAN).
Dong is not relied on for disclosing using a wireless local area network (WLAN).
In an analogous art, Patil discloses participating in formation of a network cluster using a wireless local area network (WLAN) (FIG. 1A and FIG. 1E, and Par. 34, “WLAN includes various devices that are the components that access the wireless network. For example, there may be two types of devices: access points ("APs") and clients (also referred to as stations, or "STAs"). In general, an AP may serve as a hub or base station for the WLAN and an STA serves as a user of the WLAN. For example, an STA may be a laptop computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile phone, etc. In an example, an STA connects to an AP via a Wi-Fi (e.g., IEEE 802.11 protocol such as 802.11ah or 802.11ac) compliant wireless link to obtain general connectivity to the Internet or to other wide area networks. In some implementations an STA may also be used as an AP”, note that figure 1 depicts a network cluster that includes an access point several devices connected to the access point forming a network by providing relaying capability between the devices via the access point, thus, the access point participates in the formation of the network cluster).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Dong by incorporating the teachings of Patil so that the relevant locations of the nearby access points are used for providing relay service services among the wireless devices. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
The combination of Dong/Patil is not relied on specific claim language: location information for one or more other wireless nodes, based on relative location measurements
In an analogous art, Svennebring discloses location information for one or more other wireless nodes, based on relative location measurements for at least some of the other wireless nodes (Par. 106, “the position of a mobile device may be determined based on measurements of signals received from the mobile device by multiple base stations-or signals received by the mobile device from multiple base stations-using triangulation/trilateration techniques”. Note that the position/location of the mobile device (equivalent to one or more wireless node) is determined based measurements between the mobile device and multiple base station (equivalent to some other wireless nodes). Further note that the location of mobile device is determined based on relative location of multiple base stations such that measurements from mobile device to multiple base stations are taken and then used in a triangulation technique to determine the location of the mobile device, thus, the location information for one or more other wireless nodes (mobile device) is based on relative location measurements for at least some of the other wireless nodes, e.g., base stations).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination by incorporating the teachings of Svennebring so that the relevant locations of the nearby nodes are used for measurements and the measurements are used in the triangulation technique, for the purpose of obtaining the location of the one or more nodes accurately based on known locations of other nodes. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Dong/Patil/Svennebring discloses the wireless node of claim 1, wherein the location information is received, via the at least one transceiver, from the one or more other wireless nodes subject to a restricted number of hops (Svennebring, Par. 106, “the position of a mobile device may be determined based on measurements of signals received from the mobile device by multiple base stations-or signals received by the mobile device from multiple base stations-using triangulation/trilateration techniques”. Note that base station are wireless nodes subject to a restricted number of hops. Based on a broad interpretation, the connection from mobile device to base station is one hop only, thus, it is a restricted hop node).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Dong by incorporating the teachings of Svennebring so that nodes subject to restricted number of hops are used, for the purpose of obtaining a more accurate location of the one or more nodes because restricted hops between nodes helps in the signal measurements. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Dong/Patil/Svennebring discloses the wireless node of claim 1, wherein a size of the network cluster is based on an accuracy objective of an application (Dong, FIG. 1-2B, 6, Abstract and Par. 34, 36, “the base stations 12 and the terminals 11 can be connected to each other via wireless air interfaces.”, note the size of a network cluster naturally affects the accuracy objective of an application, e.g., if a cluster becomes too large (e.g., one cluster for the entire network), it may become too generalized, failing to capture meaningful, fine-grained patterns, thus reducing the precision of the results and conversely, very small clusters may introduce excessive noise or fail to provide enough data for reliable statistical analysis, potentially leading to unstable or less accurate results (e.g., in applications like statistical power analysis for randomized trials or machine learning with small batch sizes).
Claims 9 and 11-12 recite features analogous to the features of claims 1 and 3-4 respectively, with exception that clams 1 and 3-4 are directed to an apparatus including processors and memory, while claims 9 and 11-12 are method claims. Therefore, claims 9 and 11-12 are broader for lacking the specific hardware elements of the apparatus claims. Further, each of the steps in the method claims of 9 and 11-12 are also in the apparatus claim and address in the rejection. Therefore, claims 9 and 11-12 are rejected for the same reason as set forth above in the rejection of claims 1 and 3-4.
Referring to claim 21, the combination of Dong/Patil/Svennebring discloses the wireless node of claim 1, wherein the wireless node is configured to operate as a station or an access point (Patil, FIG. 1A and FIG. 1E, and Par. 34, “WLAN includes various devices that are the components that access the wireless network. For example, there may be two types of devices: access points ("APs")”, note that Patil explicitly discloses that the wireless node is an access point in WLAN).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination by incorporating the teachings of Patil so that the an access point is used for providing relay service services among the wireless devices. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Claim 22 recites features analogous to the features of claim 1, with exception that clam 1 is directed to an apparatus including processors and memory, while claim 22 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instruction stored thereon. Further, the instructions executed by the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 22 are same instruction provided by the processor of wireless node in claim 1. Therefore, claim 22 is rejected for the same reason as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 2, 10 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (US 2023/0134028) in view of Patil (US 2015/0109961), in view of Svennebring (US 20230308199) and further in view of Patil (US 20150350906, hereinafter Patil-06).
Referring to claim 2, the above combination of Dong/Patil/Svennebring discloses wireless node of claim 1.
The combination is not relied on for disclosing wherein in order to participate in formation of [[a]] the network cluster, the one or more processors are further configured to cause the wireless node to: transmit, via the at least one transceiver, synchronization beacons with limited transmit power.
In an analogous art, Patil-06 discloses in order to participate in formation of [[a]] the network cluster, the one or more processors are further configured to cause the wireless node to: transmit, via the at least one transceiver, synchronization beacons with limited transmit power (FIG. 1-3 and Par. 141, 149, “subset of the devices of the wireless network 101 may transmit synchronization beacons and/or discovery beacons over the particular communication channel of the wireless network 101”, note that the synchronization signals and/or discovery beacons are used to synchronize the network elements so that they are on the same clock and thus, the network would be used for relaying, routing, multicasting and allowing multiple devices to have access and use it).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the above combination by incorporating the teachings of Patil so that the network devices would be on the same timing clock, for the purpose of keeping all network operations and device communications synchronized and thereby providing an efficient communication network. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Claims 10 and 23 recites features analogous to the features of claim 2, Therefore, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth above in the rejection of claim 2.
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (US 2023/0134028) in view of Patil (US 20150109961), in view of Svennebring (US 20230308199) and further in view of Lakhzouri (US 2013/0188626).
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Dong/Patil/Svennebring discloses the wireless node of claim 4.
The above combination is not relied on for disclosing the claim language: wherein the location information is based on absolute location information associated with a first subset of the wireless nodes.
However, obtaining an absolute location is well-known in the art, as shown below by Lakhzouri. An advantage of absolute location is that the location is based visible access nodes or based on altitude and longitude, thereby more accurate when in case of environmental distortions.
In an analogous art, Lakhzouri discloses the location information is based on absolute location information associated with a first subset of the wireless nodes (Abstract, Par. 35, “A WLAN positioning system for calculating the geographic location of a mobile device minimizes the amount of data retrieved from a remote access point location server by dynamically switching between public fetching operations and private fetching operations in response to one or more parameters ”, “the absolute location of mobile device 200 (e.g., its current latitude and longitude coordinates) or the centroid of the set of access points that are currently visible to mobile device 200”. Note that an absolute location of a mobile device could be calculated using current latitude and longitude or the centroid of a set of access points that are currently visible to the mobile device)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the above combination by incorporating the teachings of Lakhzouri so that the determined location is absolute location based visible access nodes or based on altitude and longitude, for the purpose of providing a more accurate location efficiently by reducing environmental distortions. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Claim 13 recites features analogous to the features of claim 5, with exception that clam 5 is directed to an apparatus including processors and memory, while claim 13 is a method claim. Therefore, claim 13 is broader for lacking the specific hardware elements of the apparatus claims. Therefore, claim 13 rejected for the same reason as set forth above in the rejection of claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 6-8 and 14-16 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is the examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 6 and 14:
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the limitations “averaging location information obtained from the first subset of the wireless nodes; and providing, in the report, the average location information for all wireless nodes in the network cluster”, as recited in claims 6 and 14 along with the limitations of the intermediate and/or base claims.
Regarding claims 7 and 15:
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the limitations “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to include, in the report: absolute location information for the first subset of the wireless nodes of the network cluster, and relative location information for a second subset of the wireless nodes of the network cluster”, as recited in claims 7 and 15 along with the limitations of the intermediate and/or base claims.
Regarding claims 8 and 16:
Claims 8 and 16 depend on allowable subject matter of claims 7 and 15, thus, they are allowable for being dependent upon allowable claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRED A CASCA whose telephone number is (571)272-7918. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9 to 5. 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, Kathy Wang-Hurst, can be reached at (571) 270-5371. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/FRED A CASCA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights