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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s remarks that the claims are directed to processing specific physical RF signals over the air, specifically, receiving a positioning reference signal from a second network node, a first uplink positioning reference signal from a first UE, and a second uplink positioning reference signal from a second UE, the examiner notes that there is no processing of RF signals in the claims. Specifically, the claims only require calculating the first RSTD and second RSTD from some given or acquired values. Contrary to the applicant’s assertion that the enabling operation in the claims is tied directly to the tangible, physical properties of real-world signals, the mathematical calculations for the RSTDs can be performed if the reception times, propagation times, and reception-to-transmission time differences are known to the person performing the calculation, without the use of any signal processing of the RF signals. That is, simply knowing the values of the reception times, propagation times, and reception-to-transmission time differences will be enough to mathematically calculate the RSTDs as there is no specific RF signal processing that results in a determination of the reception times, propagation times, and reception-to-transmission time differences.
In response to the applicant’s remarks that explain why the claims reflect a specific technological solution to a defined technological problem in wireless communications, and thus meaningfully limit the alleged exception and integrate it into a practical application, the examiner notes that in the claims, no outcome beyond the calculations are set forth. Specifically, the result of the calculation is not applied to any positioning method that results in a high accuracy positioning. The claims simply calculate the RSTDs and are devoid of any positioning using the RSTDs.
In response to the applicant’s remarks that the examiner incorrectly characterizes the three "receiving" operations recited in the independent claims as "simply data gathering (insignificant extra solution activities, and that the claimed operations of receiving specific physical RF signals (a positioning reference signal and two uplink positioning reference signals) at specific reception times are not generic data gathering or nominal additions, and rather, the reception of these specific signals is the exact mechanism that allows the system to bypass the network synchronization bottleneck described above because without capturing the precise reception times of these specific over-the-air signals, the joint estimation of the time-of-arrival (ToA) that cures the synchronization errors cannot occur, and because these physical signal reception steps are the foundational building blocks of the technological improvement, they impose meaningful limits on the claims and are far more than insignificant extra-solution activity, the examiner notes that the steps are referred to as data gathering because they are not used in determining the RSTDs. As explained above, while the receiving of the positioning reception signals at the network node have reception times, the claims simply mention that the receiving steps have a reception time, and then proceeds to perform the enabling step using the reception times. No details (additional steps) have been provided to clarify how the reception steps are used to generate or determine the reception times. The reception times are simply used (in a mathematical calculation) to calculate the RSTDs, and no further positioning is performed using the RSTDs that results in the technological improves asserted by the applicant.
Therefore, the examiner maintains that the claims do not include a practical application nor significantly and are thereby ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 1-46 is withdrawn in view of new grounds of rejection based on 35 USC 101. Rejections based on the new grounds of rejection follow below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 18, 29, and 46 recite enabling a first reference signal time difference (RSTD) measurement to be calculated for the first UE and a second RSTD measurement to be calculated for the second UE, wherein the first RSTD measurement is based on the first reception time, the second reception time, a first propagation time of the first uplink positioning reference signal, and a first reception-to-transmission (Rx-Tx) time difference between a reception time at the first UE of the positioning reference signal and a transmission time from the first UE of the first uplink positioning reference signal, and wherein the second RSTD measurement is based on the first reception time, the third reception time, a second propagation time of the second uplink positioning reference signal, and a second Rx-Tx time difference between a reception time at the second UE of the positioning reference signal and a transmission time from the second UE of the second uplink positioning reference signal. The above step falls into the abstract idea grouping of "mathematical concepts", because it recites measurements to be calculated and how they are calculated.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not provide limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application. The claim general links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. No outcome beyond the calculations is set forth, such as an actual positioning step. Also, mere instructions to perform the method on a calculator ("computer" of some type) does not create a practical application. Again, no additional steps beyond the calculations are set forth.
The 3 receiving steps in the claims are considered additional elements of the data that is received or simply data gathering (insignificant extra solution activities). No details (additional steps) have been provided to clarify how the data is gathered or by what means the data is gathered. The reference signals are simply "received" by the first network node. The only remaining subject matter is the enabling step (the abstract idea itself - see above), which provides for calculations involving the data that was received. The processor, memory, and other circuits are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than it is generic processor with circuits) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the mental process predict location (e.g., using received data to calculate a RSTD measurement) using a computer component as a tool. While this type of automation may minimize or eliminate the need for mentally estimating or computing the RSTD measurement, there is no change to the computers and other technology (i.e., processor/computer) that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017)(using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Accordingly, the claims as a whole do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not provide significantly more to the abstract idea. The claims generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, a first and second network node and first and second user equipment (networks and computers). No outcome beyond the calculation is set forth, such as an actual positioning step. Also, mere instructions to perform the method on computer does not provide significantly more to the abstract idea.
The 3 receiving steps are considered additional elements of the data that is received or simply data gathering (insignificant extra solution activities). No details (additional steps) have been provided to clarify how the data is gathered or by what means the data is gathered. The reference signals are simply "received" by the first network node. The only remaining subject matter is the enabling step (the abstract idea itself - see above), which provides for calculations involving the data that was received. (See MPEP 2106.05(g))
The other additional elements set forth are the first and second network nodes, which are used to transmit or receive signals (as shown to be well known / traditional - see paragraph 0040 of the specification reproduced below). See 2106.05(f)3)
See [0040] showing the general application of network nodes as traditionally being applied.
"Transmit beamforming is a technique for focusing an RF signal in a specific direction. Traditionally, when a network node (e.g., a base station) broadcasts an RF signal, it broadcasts the signal in all directions (omni-directionally). With transmit beamforming, the network node determines where a given target device (e.g., a UE) is located (relative to the transmitting network node) and projects a stronger downlink RF signal in that specific direction, thereby providing a faster (in terms of data rate) and stronger RF signal for the receiving device(s). To change the directionality of the RF signal when transmitting, a network node can control the phase and relative amplitude of the RF signal at each of the one or more transmitters that are broadcasting the RF signal. For example, a network node may use an array of antennas (referred to as a "phased array "or an "antenna array") that creates a beam of RF waves that can be "steered" to point in different directions, without actually moving the antennas. Specifically, the RF current from the transmitter is fed to the individual antennas with the correct phase relationship so that the radio waves from the separate antennas add together to increase the radiation in a desired direction, while cancelling to suppress radiation in undesired directions.
In summary, the claims set forth an abstract idea that does not include a practical application nor significantly more and is thereby considered ineligible subject matter under 101.
Claims 2-17, 19-28, and 30-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the same reasons as claims 1, 18, 30, and 45 above. The recited limitations in these claims recite transmitting and receiving of information for said calculation of RSTD, without any outcome beyond the calculations such as an actual positioning step.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUMIDE T AJIBADE AKONAI whose telephone number is (571)272-6496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, CHARLES N APPIAH can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/OLUMIDE AJIBADE AKONAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights