DETAILED ACTION
This communication is response to the application filed 12/20/2023. Claims 1-15 are pending and presented for examination. A preliminary amendment filed on 12/20/2023 is acknowledged and entered.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2023 and 11/25/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 15, the claim recite “a characteristic of the LOS channel”, which is vague and unclear and leaves one of ordinary skill in the art in doubt of the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers. Thus, the claim limitation renders the definition of the claim subject-matter unclear and indefinite.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, the claim mention that the base station determines based on the preamble whether the channel is an LOS or an NLOS and receives the reference signal when the channel is determined as NLOS. The wording of this claim limitation leaves one of ordinary skill in the art in doubt as to how it is possible based on a determination made in the base station to control whether to received a reference signal transmitted from the UE, i.e., does the base station indicate to the UE not to transmit the reference signal in case the channel is LOS, or does the base station shut down its receiver in order not to receive the reference signal when the channel is determined as LOS. Thus, the claim language is unclear and renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 8, the claim mentions “transmitting of, to the UE, at least one of location information of the UE, the identification result information about the LOS channel, or the signal generated based on the characteristic of the LOS channel”, which leaves one of ordinary skill in the art in doubt as to whether the step of “transmitting, to the UE, at least one of identification result information about the LOS channel, or a signal generated based on a characteristic of the LOS channel” mentioned in claim is optional or not, since according to claim 8, instead of the identification result and the signal generated, a location information can be transmitted. Thus, the claim language is unclear and renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 11, The term “pathloss exponent, shadowing value, frequency value” in the claim unclear renders the claim indefinite. The term “pathloss exponent, shadowing value, frequency value” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The terms are vague and unclear and leave one of ordinary skill in the art in doubt as to their limitations to the subject-matter of claim 1.
Regarding claims 4-7,9-10, and 14, they are also rejected since they depend(s) on rejected base claim.
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(s) 1, 5, 6, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0228272 to SORIAGA et al. (hereafter Soriaga).
Regarding claim 1, Soriaga discloses a method of identifying, by a base station (BS), a line-of-sight (LOS) channel in a wireless communication system (see Soriaga, ¶ 0006: a method of determining a line-of-sight (LOS) path between a transmitter and a wireless device), the method comprising:
receiving, from a user equipment (UE), a reference signal for measuring a channel in each of multiple bands (see Soriaga, ¶ 0006: receiving, at the wireless device, a second reference signal on a second frequency band at a second time);
determining, based on the reference signal, whether the channel is an LOS or a non-line-of-sight (NLOS) in each of the multiple bands (see Soriaga, ¶ 0006: determining, by the wireless device, at least based on the comparison of the first time to the second time, which of the first reference signal and/or the second reference signal followed the LOS path between the transmitter and the wireless device);
when the channel is determined as the LOS in each of the multiple bands, identifying the channel as the LOS channel (see Soriaga, Fig 5; ¶ 0070: both the high frequency band (HB) reference signal and the low frequency band (LB) reference signal follow the LOS path between the transmitter (e.g., a base station 402) and the receiver (e.g., a UE 204), arriving at the receiver at the same time, and thereby having the same ToA); and
transmitting, to the UE, at least one of identification result information about the LOS channel, or a signal generated based on a characteristic of the LOS channel (see Soriaga, ¶ 0090: the wireless device optionally reports, to a positioning entity (e.g., the serving base station or a location server) the transmitter, which of the first reference signal and/or the second reference signal followed the LOS path).
Regarding claim 5, Soriaga discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the determining of, based on the reference signal, whether the channel is the LOS or the NLOS in each of the multiple bands comprises: determining a delay power value of a reference signal received in a first frequency band, based on a channel impulse response of the reference signal received in the first frequency band; and determining a delay power value of a reference signal received in a second frequency band, based on a channel impulse response of the reference signal received in the second frequency band, and wherein the identifying of the channel as the LOS channel comprises: when the delay power value of the reference signal received in the first frequency band is greater than a threshold power value determined for the first frequency band, and the delay power value of the reference signal received in the second frequency band is greater than a threshold power value determined for the second frequency band, determining the channel as the LOS channel (see Soriaga, ¶ 0068 and ¶ 0074).
Regarding claim 6, Soriaga discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the determining of, based on the reference signal, whether the channel is the LOS or the NLOS in each of the multiple bands comprises: based on a channel impulse response of a reference signal received in a first frequency band, determining first effective NLOSs as paths having a power value corresponding to a difference value between a maximum reception delay power value of the reference signal received in the first frequency band and a threshold power value; and based on a channel impulse response of a reference signal received in a second frequency band, determining second effective NLOSs as paths having a power value corresponding to a difference value between a maximum reception delay power value of the reference signal received in the second frequency band and a threshold power value, and wherein the identifying of the channel as the LOS channel comprises: when the number of the first effective NLOSs is smaller than a reference number of effective NLOSs determined for the first frequency band, and the number of the second effective NLOSs is smaller than a reference number of effective NLOSs determined for the second frequency band, identifying the channel as the LOS channel (see Soriaga, ¶ 0068 and ¶ 0074).
Regarding claim 12, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 1.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0228272 to SORIAGA et al. (hereafter Soriaga) in view of “Blockage Identification in Indoor UWB Ranging Using Multi Band OFDM Signals” by ALSINDI et al. (hereafter Alsindi), see IDS date 11/25/2024.
Regarding claim 7, Soriaga discloses the method of claim 1, Soriaga does not explicitly disclose wherein the determining of, based on the reference signal, whether the channel is the LOS or the NLOS in each of the multiple bands comprises: determining, based on a channel impulse response of a reference signal received in a first frequency band, a first root mean squared (RMS) delay spread value of the reference signal received in the first frequency band; and determining, based on a channel impulse response of a reference signal received in a second frequency band, a second RMS delay spread value of the reference signal received in the second frequency band, and wherein the identifying of the channel as the LOS channel comprises: when the first RMS delay spread value is smaller than a reference delay spread value for the first frequency band, and the second RMS delay spread value is smaller than a reference delay spread value for the second frequency band, determining the channel as the LOS channel.
However, Alsindi discloses wherein the determining of, based on the reference signal, whether the channel is the LOS or the NLOS in each of the multiple bands comprises: determining, based on a channel impulse response of a reference signal received in a first frequency band, a first root mean squared (RMS) delay spread value of the reference signal received in the first frequency band; and determining, based on a channel impulse response of a reference signal received in a second frequency band, a second RMS delay spread value of the reference signal received in the second frequency band, and wherein the identifying of the channel as the LOS channel comprises: when the first RMS delay spread value is smaller than a reference delay spread value for the first frequency band, and the second RMS delay spread value is smaller than a reference delay spread value for the second frequency band, determining the channel as the LOS channel (see Alsindi, page 3233, section IIIB).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Alsindi and incorporate it into the system of Soriaga to improve communication system performance (see Alsindi, page 3236, 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 11, Soriaga discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the multiple bands comprise at least two frequency bands that are separate by a value greater than a preset frequency difference, and the preset frequency difference is determined based on at least one of a pathloss exponent with respect to each of the multiple bands, a shadowing value, or a frequency value of a carrier with respect to each of the multiple bands.
However, Alsindi discloses wherein the multiple bands comprise at least two frequency bands that are separate by a value greater than a preset frequency difference, and the preset frequency difference is determined based on at least one of a pathloss exponent with respect to each of the multiple bands, a shadowing value, or a frequency value of a carrier with respect to each of the multiple bands (see Alsindi, page 3232, Section IIIA, lines 1-8).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Alsindi and incorporate it into the system of Soriaga to improve communication system performance (see Alsindi, page 3236, 1st paragraph).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soriaga in view of WO 2020/229902 A1 by LM ERICSON (hereafter Ericson), see IDS dated 12/20/2023.
Regarding claim 8, Soriaga discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the transmitting of, to the UE, at least one of location information of the UE, the identification result information about the LOS channel, or the signal generated based on the characteristic of the LOS channel comprises: determining a value of at least one of a cyclic prefix (CP) size or a reference signal density, based on the characteristic of the LOS channel; generating data or a signal comprising the reference signal, based on the determined value; and transmitting the signal to the UE.
However, Ericson discloses wherein the transmitting of, to the UE, at least one of location information of the UE, the identification result information about the LOS channel, or the signal generated based on the characteristic of the LOS channel comprises: determining a value of at least one of a cyclic prefix (CP) size or a reference signal density, based on the characteristic of the LOS channel; generating data or a signal comprising the reference signal, based on the determined value; and transmitting the signal to the UE (see Ericson, Fig 6-9; claim 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Ericson and incorporate it into the system of Soriaga to improve system performance (see Ericson, ¶ 0007).
Regarding claim 9, Soriaga discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: receiving, from the UE, a reference signal request for measuring a location of the UE; transmitting, to the UE, a reference signal for measuring a location of the UE; and receiving, from the UE, information about existence or non-existence of an LOS channel between the UE and the BS, and location information of the UE, based on the reference signal for measuring the location of the UE, wherein existence or non-existence of the LOS channel and the location information of the UE are determined based on the reference signal.
However, Ericson discloses receiving, from the UE, a reference signal request for measuring a location of the UE; transmitting, to the UE, a reference signal for measuring a location of the UE; and receiving, from the UE, information about existence or non-existence of an LOS channel between the UE and the BS, and location information of the UE, based on the reference signal for measuring the location of the UE, wherein existence or non-existence of the LOS channel and the location information of the UE are determined based on the reference signal (see Ericson, Fig 7-10; ¶ 0086: the processing circuitry 703 may perform positioning measurements. The positioning measurements may include measurements from the LOS detection measurements. In operation 1013, the processing circuitry 703 may estimate a position of the UE using results of the LOS detection measurements and the positioning measurements).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by Ericson and incorporate it into the system of Soriaga to improve system performance (see Ericson, ¶ 0007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 10, 13 and 14 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0012085 to MANOLAKOS et al. discloses a number of LOS paths 610 and a number of NLOS paths 612 between the base stations 602 and the UE 604. Specifically, FIG. 6 illustrates base station 602a transmitting over an LOS path 610a and an NLOS path 612a, base station 602b transmitting over an LOS path 610b and two NLOS paths 612b, base station 602c transmitting over an LOS path 610c and an NLOS path 612c, and base station 602d transmitting over two NLOS paths 612d. As illustrated in FIG. 6, each NLOS path 612 reflects off some object 630 (e.g., a building).
US 2023/0041613 to ZHENG et al. discloses receiving, from the user terminal, at least one characteristic of the user terminal determined based on the prior channel information, wherein the at least one characteristic of the user terminal comprises information indicating the at least one channel of the user terminal being a line-of-sight (LOS) channel or non-LOS (NLOS) channel or a velocity of the user terminal, and wherein the method further comprising: transmitting, to the user terminal, control information of configuring reference signal and/or data channel transmissions based on the at least one characteristic of the wireless terminal, and performing a transmission with the user terminal based on the control information.
US 2024/0373272 to GUO et al. discloses acquiring a downlink reference signal sent by a base station, and determining a LOS path and a reference path from a plurality of transmission paths of the downlink reference signal; acquiring a reference delay difference that is a difference between a downlink transmission delay of the LOS path and the downlink transmission delay of reference path; sending an uplink reference signal to the base station, to cause the base station to obtain an uplink transmission delay of reference path based on the uplink reference signal; and reporting the reference delay difference to the base station, to cause the base station to obtain the uplink transmission delay of LOS path based on the uplink transmission delay of reference path and reference delay difference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHEED GIDADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/RASHEED GIDADO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights