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 7/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument: Applicant argued (REM 7/14/2026, page 9, 2nd paragraph):
“The Applicant respectfully disagrees. For example, independent claim 1 in the present application is selecting an optimum compliant source from at least one compliant source to provide a location of the user device. Conversely, independent claim 1 in the 18/610,066 application is selecting a lowest horizontal location uncertainty from among a plurality of non-compliant sources and selecting a lowest vertical location uncertainty from among the plurality of noncompliant sources, such that the selected lowest horizontal location data and the selected lowest vertical location data are used as the captured location data for the user device. Thus, these claims are patentably distinct from one another.”
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is comparing claim 1 of the instant application with only claim 1 of US 18/610,066 instead of claim 7 (i.e. 1+ 7) of US 18/610,066. Claim 7 of US 18/610,066 clearly recites “in response to identifying at least one compliant source, selecting an optimum compliant source from the at least one compliant source.”, as required.
Argument: Applicant argued (REM 7/14/2026, page 11, 3rd paragraph staring with “Therefore, Zorgui describes ….”):
“But this description says nothing about the claimed features of determining if both the horizontal location uncertainty meets a specific horizonal threshold and the vertical location uncertainty meets a specific vertical threshold, identifying a source as compliant if both of the uncertainties satisfy their corresponding thresholds, and then selecting an optimum source from among the compliant sources. Thus, Zorgui fails to describe or suggest each feature recited in independent claim 1.”
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, Zorgui is used to identify if sources are compliant or non-compliant (see CTNF 3/24/2026, page 6, last limitation onwards). Zorgui is not used to select an optimum source from among the compliant sources. This task is done by the secondary reference Nykanen (see CTNF 3/24/2026, page 7, bottom). Hence, Applicant’s argument above is invalid.
Argument: Applicant argued (REM 7/14/2026, page 11, last paragraph):
“Furthermore, combining Nykanen with Zorgui would render the system of Zorgui unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. As mentioned above, the objective or intended purpose of Zorgui is to instruct a mobile device to report new sensor data if the location server determines that its estimated location of the mobile device is inaccurate. But Nykanen describes comparing the required level of accuracy with the known level of accuracy of each source and selecting a source based on that comparison. Therefore, if Nykanen was combined with Zorgui, then Zorgui would simply compare the levels of accuracy and select a source based on that comparison, which would remove the need to instruct the mobile device to activate new sensor data reporting. Thus, combining Nykanen with Zorgui would render the system of Zorgui unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Accordingly, the combination of Zorgui and Nykanen is improper.”
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Zorgui would select sources that are compliant and then Nykanen could be used to select the optimum compliant source. Combining Zorgui and Nykanen methods to do the above is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7, 14 respectively of copending Application No. 18610066 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations of claim 1 are contained in claim 7 of Application No. 18610066.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zorgui et al. (US 20220322055 A1) in view of Nykanen et al. (US 20020173317 A1) (which have been provided in the International Search Report).
Regarding claim 1, Zorgui discloses a method, comprising:
obtaining, from a plurality of sources ([0013]; Fig. 3; [0064] discloses “Fusion logic 380 may comprise a positioning engine capable of providing a combined positioning output using multiple sources of data, including one or more positioning methods (e.g., RAT-dependent positioning 310 and/or RAT-independent positioning 315), as well as sensor data 335 from one or more sensors”), horizontal location data and vertical location data of a user device ([0037] discloses “A location may be specified as a geodetic location comprising coordinates which may be absolute … relative … or local (e.g. X, Y and optionally Z coordinates…”; wherein the horizontal and vertical location data are the X and Y coordinates respectively;) using a location-based service via a cellular communications network (Fig. 1, base stations 120 in cellular network; [0030]);
for each corresponding source of the plurality of sources:
determining a horizontal location uncertainty of the horizontal location data for the corresponding source ([0037], last sentence discloses “A location may further include an uncertainty or error indication, such as a horizontal and possibly vertical distance by which the location is expected to be in error”);
determining a vertical location uncertainty of the vertical location data for the corresponding source ([0037], last sentence discloses “A location may further include an uncertainty or error indication, such as a horizontal and possibly vertical distance by which the location is expected to be in error”);
determining if both the horizontal location uncertainty for the corresponding source meets a threshold horizontal uncertainty value and the vertical location uncertainty for the corresponding source meets a threshold vertical uncertainty value ([0077] discloses “This uncertainty value exceeding a threshold (or an accuracy value dropping below a threshold)….”. Since X and Y coordinates used as above, under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E), having thresholds for horizontal and vertical is obvious to try );
in response to determining that both the horizontal location uncertainty for the corresponding source meets the threshold horizontal uncertainty value and the vertical location uncertainty for the corresponding source meets the threshold vertical uncertainty value, identifying the corresponding source as compliant (Abstract, 1st sentence discloses “Aspects of sensor activation or deactivation for positioning a mobile device in a wireless communication network are disclosed.”; [0075] discloses “Generally speaking, conditions in which the sensor data may be useful will trigger activation of sensor data reporting, and conditions in which the sensor data may not be useful will trigger deactivation of sensor data reporting.”; [0077] discloses “This uncertainty value exceeding a threshold (or an accuracy value dropping below a threshold) may itself be a trigger condition for activating sensor data reporting”; [0080] discloses “That is, if trigger conditions for activating the sensor data reporting are no longer met, it may trigger deactivation of the sensor data reporting. Thus, trigger conditions for deactivating sensor data reporting may comprise, for example, (i) an uncertainty value of a mobile device position estimation falling below a threshold (or an accuracy value exceeding a threshold),…”; wherein compliant is interpreted as in [0077] above, which activates a sensor and non-compliant is interpreted as in [0080] above, which deactivates a sensor);
and in response to determining that at least one of the horizontal location uncertainty for the corresponding source fails to meet the threshold horizontal uncertainty value or the vertical location uncertainty for the corresponding source fails to meet the threshold vertical uncertainty value, identifying the corresponding source as non-compliant (see previous limitation rejection).
Zorgui does not disclose:
and in response to identifying at least one compliant source, selecting an optimum compliant source from the at least one compliant source to provide a location of the user device using the location-based service via the cellular communications network.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Nykanen discloses:
and in response to identifying at least one compliant source, selecting an optimum compliant source from the at least one compliant source to provide a location of the user device using the location-based service via the cellular communications network ([0037] discloses “…. intelligent positioning service determines whether both sources of positioning information are available and of sufficient accuracy. ….; [0039] discloses “If in step 2a-1 it is determined that both sources are available and of sufficient accuracy, flow proceeds to step 2a-9 where the cost of using each source is compared …. flow proceeds to step 2a-13 where it is determined whether the payer will pay for the increased accuracy …. higher quality location information”; wherein optimum source would be selected based on increased accuracy …. higher quality location information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the method, as taught by Nykanen, in the system of Zorgui because selecting the increased accuracy/higher quality location information would result in a surcharge, thereby increasing revenue for more accurate location information.
Claim 2 is analyzed as in claim1 above: Nykanen discloses that the most accurate location can be selected. Hence, the X and Y components of the optimum location would be selected.
Regarding claim 3, Zorgui does not excplitly disclose employing the horizontal location data and the vertical location data of the optimum compliant source to determine if the cellular communications network is providing compliant location data across a plurality of uses of the location-based service.
However, as in claim 1 above, Nykanen discloses obtaining the optimum source. Zorgui further discloses “As further indicated by arrow 470, functions 440, 450, and 460 may be repeated during the positioning session.” (Fig. 4; [0070]; wherein a plurality of uses is interpreted as repeating the measurement steps). One of ordinary skill in the art can compare the original optimum location with subsequent location calculations to determine if compliant data is still provided. Under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E), this is obvious to try.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to do the above because this would allow one to know if subsequent locations calculations are accurate, thereby indicating some problem if inaccurate.
Claim 4 is similarly analyzed as claim 1. Zorgui (Fig. 7) discloses activate sensor 680 when trigger condition in 630 is met. If no sensor meets the trigger condition 630, then no compliant sensors would be selected. Hence one of ordinary skill in the art can choose a sensor from the alternate path 640 and activate it in block 685 instead of deactivating it. Under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E & F), this is obvious to try and an obvious variation of what Zorgui discloses.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to do the above because this would allow one to select a sensor that gives “coarse” results if no sensor with “high accuracy” is available.
Regarding claim 5, Zorgui does not explicitly disclose selecting an alternate threshold.
However, selecting a threshold is merely a design choice and can easily be changed by one of ordinary skill in the art (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E, Obvious to Try).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to change the threshold because this would allow one to select a sensor that gives “coarser” results if no sensor with “high accuracy” is available.
All other limitations of claim 5 are analyzed as in claim 1 above.
Claim 6 is similarly analyzed as claim 5. What can be done for horizontal uncertainty can be replicated for vertical uncertainty.
Regarding claim 7, Zorgui discloses selecting the optimum compliant source from the at least one compliant source comprises:
for each corresponding compliant source of the at least one compliant source, determining a combined score from a combination of the horizontal location uncertainty for the corresponding compliant source and the vertical location uncertainty for the corresponding compliant source ([0037], last sentence discloses “A location may further include an uncertainty or error indication, such as a horizontal and possibly vertical distance by which the location is expected to be in error or an indication of an area or volume (e.g. a circle or ellipse) within which mobile device 105 is expected to be located with some level of confidence (e.g. 95% confidence).”; wherein area would be a combined score, since the circle radius can be easily calculated from horizontal and vertical errors, ex and ey, as sqrt(ex2 + ey2) and then the area calculated).
and selecting the most optimum compliant source based on the combined score for each of the at least one compliant source (analyzed as in claim 1 above).
Claim 8 is similarly analyzed as claims 5, 6. Selecting the lowest horizontal and vertical uncertainty can accomplished by gradually increasing the thresholds as in claims 5, 6 or merely ranking estimates according to uncertainty and selecting the lowest uncertainty values.
Claim 9 is similarly analyzed as claims 8 and 3.
Regarding claim 10, Zorgui discloses determining the horizontal location uncertainty of the horizontal location data for the corresponding source comprises:
obtaining the horizontal location uncertainty from the corresponding source ([0077] discloses “For example, if and estimated position of the mobile device by the location server has a relatively large uncertainty …”; wherein the location server determines the uncertainty).
Claim 11 is similarly analyzed as claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, Zorgui discloses determining the horizontal location uncertainty of the horizontal location data for the corresponding source comprises:
calculating the horizontal location uncertainty from a comparison between the horizontal location data for the corresponding source and an actual horizontal location of the user device ([0037], last sentence discloses “A location may further include an uncertainty or error indication, such as a horizontal and possibly vertical distance by which the location is expected to be in error or an indication of an area or volume (e.g. a circle or ellipse) within which mobile device 105 is expected to be located”; wherein location is compared with expected location).
Claim 13 is similarly analyzed as claim 12, with vertical uncertainty calculated the same way as horizontal uncertainty.
Claim 14 is similarly analyzed as claim 1, with claim 14 reciting equivalent apparatus limitations. Memory, processor are disclosed by Zorgui (Fig. 10, elements 1025, 1010; [0020]).
Claim 15 is similarly analyzed as claim 2.
Claim 16 is similarly analyzed as claim 4.
Claim 17 is similarly analyzed as claim 5.
Claim 18 is similarly analyzed as claim 6.
Claim 19 is similarly analyzed as claim 8.
Claim 20 is similarly analyzed as claim 1. Claim 20 additionally recites 911 call. Though Zorgui doesn’t explicitly disclose 911 call, Zorgui discloses “emergency services provider” ([0038]) to which a mobile device (Fig. 1, element 145) can easily place a 911 call. This is obvious to try (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E)) and allows accurate location information to be provided in the case of an emergency.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
The following patents/publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to location error determination:
Chao et al. (US 9361889 B2) discloses Landmark Based Positioning with Verbal Input (e.g. column 2, lines 1 – 5).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is (571)272-1043. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 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, Chieh M 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.
/ADOLF DSOUZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights