Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is in response to the Application No. 18/521,824 filed on 11/28/23. Claims 1 – 30 has been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claim 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is drawn to a “computer-readable medium” comprising instructions. The specification only gives non-limited examples for the meaning of this term (or open-ended explanation of the term). Thus, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and taking into account the meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim as a whole covers a transitory signal, which does not fall within the definition of a process, a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim Interpretation
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
6. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
7. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for” in claim 29.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, “means for obtaining” is interpreted as “antenna”. “Means for measuring” is interpreted as “receiving processor”, “means for identifying” is interpreted as “receiving processor” and “means for outputting” is interpreted as “transmitter”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 1 – 2, 5, 7 – 12, 15 – 16, 19, 21 – 26, 29 – 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by anticipated by Muthuraman et al. (US 2022/0163677, Muthuraman hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, Muthuraman teaches An apparatus for wireless communication at a wireless device, comprising:
at least one memory (memory, paragraph 5; and throughout the spec); and
at least one processor (processor, paragraph 5’ and throughout the spec) coupled to the at least one memory and the at least one processor (memory is coupled to the processor, paragraph 5; and throughout the spec), individually or in any combination, is configured to:
obtain antenna phase center (APC) information (an antenna phase offset data 151, Fig. 1,6; paragraph 28) for a plurality of frequencies associated with an antenna of the wireless device (the antenna phase center offset data 151 may be frequency-specific and include information for the different frequencies (for example, different locations on the antenna) supported by the GNSS satellite, paragraph 28);
measure a set of positioning signals (PS) (orbital assistance data, 111 of Fig. 1,6; paragraph 26 - 27) at each of the plurality of frequencies via the antenna (The predicted orbital information may predict orbits of the GNSS satellites with respect to the center of mass of the satellites in an earth-centered earth-fixed (ECEF) frame of reference (known in the art that ECEF is a position or location data on earth), paragraph 27);
identify a location and an orientation of the wireless device based on the APC information and the set of PS (the location assistance server 130 can off load the computational tasks described above associated using the orbital assistance data 111 and the antenna phase center offset data 151 from the mobile station 120 by performing the computations remotely (e.g., on the server) and providing the modified orbital assistance data 131 that combines the orbital assistance data 111 with the antenna phase center offset data 151. For example, the location assistance server 130 may translate the orbital assistance data 111 from the ECEF frame of reference to an ECI frame of reference, translate the antenna phase center offset data 151 from a body-centered frame of reference to the ECI frame of reference, determine a new (e.g., modified) orbital assistance data that modifies the orbital assistance data 111 with the antenna phase center offset data 151, and translate the modified orbital assistance data to the ECEF frame of reference, paragraph 30; 38); and
output an indication of the location and the orientation of the wireless device (the modified orbital data (includes both location and orientation as mentioned above) is outputted to mobile station 120; 131 and 132; paragraph 30; 38).
Regarding claim 2, The apparatus of claim 1, Muthuraman further teaches wherein the APC information comprises phase center offset (PCO) information relative to a point associated with the wireless device in a first orientation (The antenna phase center offset data 151 describes a point or location on an antenna of a GNSS satellite (with respect to the center of mass of the GNSS satellite) that is an apparent source of transmitted satellite positioning signal (e.g., an apparent source of radiation with respect to the frequency of the satellite positioning signal). Furthermore, a GNSS satellite may transmit satellite positioning signals through more than one frequency. Thus, the antenna phase center offset data 151 may be frequency-specific and include information for the different frequencies (for example, different locations on the antenna) supported by the GNSS satellite, paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 5, The apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to identify the location and the orientation of the wireless device, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to:
determine a first location of an APC associated with each of the plurality of frequencies (as shown in Fig. 1, the first location of an APC associated with each of the plurality of frequencies, paragraph 28; please refer to Fig. 1 and 2); and
determine, based on a set of relative locations of the APC associated with each of the plurality of frequencies, the orientation of the wireless device (as mentioned above, The antenna phase center offset data 151 may also include data to locate an antenna phase center offset for other frequencies (e.g., frequencies other than the selected frequency) of satellite positioning signal. The location server 130 may determine an antenna phase offset difference that describes the distance between the antenna phase offset data associated with the selected frequency and a second frequency, paragraph 41, Fig. 1 - 2).
Regarding claim 7, the apparatus of claim 1, Muthuraman further teaches wherein the plurality of frequencies comprises three frequencies, and wherein to identify the orientation of the wireless device the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to identify the orientation of the wireless device via a set of three rotation angles associated with a corresponding set of three axes of rotation (A GNSS may transmit the satellite positioning signals through a plurality of frequencies or frequency bands. For example, GPS satellite positioning signals are transmitted through a first frequency of 1575.42 MHz (sometimes referred to as the L1 frequency), a second frequency of 1227.60 MHz (sometimes referred to as the L2 frequency), and a third frequency of 1176.45 MHz (sometimes referred to as the L5 frequency). Galileo satellite positioning signals are transmitted through 1575.42, 1278.75, 1191.795, 1176.450, and 1207.14 MHz frequencies. Other GNSS systems may use other frequencies, paragraph 24; Fig. 3 shows three axes of rotation).
Regarding claim 8, The apparatus of claim 1, Muthuraman further teaches wherein the plurality of frequencies comprises two frequencies, and wherein to identify the orientation of the wireless device the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to identify the orientation of the wireless device via a set of two rotation angles associated with a corresponding set of two axes of rotation (A GNSS may transmit the satellite positioning signals through a plurality of frequencies or frequency bands. For example, GPS satellite positioning signals are transmitted through a first frequency of 1575.42 MHz (sometimes referred to as the L1 frequency), a second frequency of 1227.60 MHz (sometimes referred to as the L2 frequency), and a third frequency of 1176.45 MHz (sometimes referred to as the L5 frequency). Galileo satellite positioning signals are transmitted through 1575.42, 1278.75, 1191.795, 1176.450, and 1207.14 MHz frequencies. Other GNSS systems may use other frequencies, paragraph 24; Fig. 3 shows three axes of rotation; still has at least two frequencies and two axes).
Regarding claim 9, The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the plurality of frequencies comprises two frequencies, and wherein to identify the orientation of the wireless device the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to identify the orientation of the wireless device via a set of three rotation angles associated with a corresponding set of three axes of rotation based on an expected orientation of the wireless device during use (A GNSS may transmit the satellite positioning signals through a plurality of frequencies or frequency bands. For example, GPS satellite positioning signals are transmitted through a first frequency of 1575.42 MHz (sometimes referred to as the L1 frequency), a second frequency of 1227.60 MHz (sometimes referred to as the L2 frequency), and a third frequency of 1176.45 MHz (sometimes referred to as the L5 frequency). Galileo satellite positioning signals are transmitted through 1575.42, 1278.75, 1191.795, 1176.450, and 1207.14 MHz frequencies. Other GNSS systems may use other frequencies, paragraph 24; Fig. 3 shows three axes of rotation).
Regarding claim 10, The apparatus of claim 1, Muthuraman further teaches wherein the antenna comprises a first antenna and each of the plurality of frequencies is associated with the first antenna of the wireless device (Fig. 7, shows the GNSS receiver for receiving all the frequencies, 715 of Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 11, The apparatus of claim 1, Muthuraman further teaches wherein the set of PS comprises at least one of positioning signals associated with a global navigation satellite system (GNSS, paragraph 23 - 24).
Regarding claim 12, The apparatus of claim 1, Muthuraman further teaches wherein, to output the indication of the location and the orientation of the wireless device, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to:
transmit, to at least one of an application or a network node, the indication of the location and the orientation of the wireless device (the modified orbital data (includes both location and orientation as mentioned above) is outputted to mobile station 120; 131 and 132; paragraph 30; 38).
Regarding claim 15, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 1, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 16, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 2, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 19, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 5, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 21, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 7, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 22, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 8, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 23, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 9, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 24, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 10, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 25, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 11, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 26, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 12, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 29, the apparatus substantially has same limitations as claim 1, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 30, the computer readable medium (paragraph 112) substantially has same limitations as claim 1, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 4, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muthuraman et al. (US 2022/0163677, Muthuraman hereafter) in further view of Liu et al. (US 2020/0333468, Liu hereafter).
Regarding claim 4, Muthuraman teaches claim 1, however, does not specifically disclose wherein the APC information comprises a rotation matrix based on a set of relative positions of an APC for each of the plurality of frequencies.
Liu teaches wherein the APC information comprises a rotation matrix based on a set of relative positions of an APC for each of the plurality of frequencies (Then, based on the multi-dimensional unknown state variable, the latest three-dimensional attitude angle from the XYZ coordinate system to the NED coordinate system and the latest rotation matrix can be obtained efficiently and accurately. Finally, the coordinate of the antenna phase center of the GNSS receiver is reduced to the coordinate of the bottom end of the pole by a geometric transformation. In addition, no factory calibration is needed as the self-calibration can always be done during the operation process, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Liu’s rotation matrix to calculate the APC with the system of Muthuraman. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because in doing so it can accurately calculate the APC.
Regarding claim 18, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 4, thus the same rejection is applicable.
12. Claim(s) 13 – 14, 27 – 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muthuraman et al. (US 2022/0163677, Muthuraman hereafter) in further view of Aldana et al. (US 2014/0206389, Aldana hereafter).
Regarding claim 13, Muthuraman teaches claim 1, however does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: transmit, to a network device via the transceiver, a capability indication of a capability to identify the location and the orientation of the wireless device based on the APC information, wherein to obtain the APC information, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to receive the APC information from the network device in response to the transmitting the indication.
Aldana teaches wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to: transmit, to a network device via the transceiver, a capability indication of a capability to identify the location and the orientation of the wireless device based on the APC information, wherein to obtain the APC information, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is further configured to receive the APC information from the network device in response to the transmitting the indication (Embodiments are provided in the disclosure for visually identifying the location of a designated target. These embodiments provide the capability for a user to determine position, orientation, and/or other information, (e.g., height, time, velocity, and/or direction of travel), hereinafter referred to as "geographical state information," of a target. As used herein, a "location" of a target refers to the known position of the target in an established reference frame. The target may be a person, animal, or an object (e.g., a car or aircraft) that is associated with a target device. The target device has the ability to determine its geographical state information and communicate this information over a network, paragraph 25).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Aldana’s capability information with the system of Muthuraman. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because in doing so it can let the system know whether it is capable of handling the standards; making it more efficient.
Regarding claim 14, Muthuraman with Aldana teaches claim 13, Aldana wherein the capability indication further comprises an identifier of the wireless device associated with the APC information, and wherein the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to receive the APC information is based on the identifier (the geographical state information of the target can be made readily available to a user through any networked user device (e.g., a laptop, smart phone, etc.) by the presenting some form of visual identifier (e.g. a photograph or avatar) representative of the target on the display of the user device. The appearance of the visual identifier can change depending upon its geographical state information, as will be discussed in more detail below. The visual identifier may be combined with data collected by an imaging sensor, such as an overlay on still image data or "real-time" video data, to allow the user to "see" the visual identifier of the target as it appears in the field of view of the imaging sensor. This permits the user to "scan" an environment by varying the orientation of the user device to search for a designated target. The combination of imaging data being collected in "real-time" and the visual identifier presents an augmented reality on the display of the user device, and allows the user to "see" the target through obstructions (e.g., walls) and/or over large distances, paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 27, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 13, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 28, the method substantially has same limitations as claim 14, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 3, 6, 17, 20 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.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANMAY K SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri - 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
TANMAY K. SHAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2632
/TANMAY K SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632