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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/22/2026 has been considered by examiner and made of record in the application file.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, Double Patenting Rejections, page 8, filed 06/22/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant Argues (Page 8, 06/22/2026):
“Claims 1, 7, 8, and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over co-pending application 18/610,060. The Office Action opines that these claims are not patentably distinct from claims in 18/610,060 application. The Applicant respectfully disagrees. For example, independent claim 1 in the present 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 non- compliant 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. Conversely, independent claim 1 in the 18/610,060 application is selecting an optimum compliant source from at least one compliant source to provide a location of the user device. Thus, these claims are patentably distinct from one another. Therefore, the provisional rejections on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting are moot and should be withdrawn.”
Examiner Answer:
Applicant argues the present application 18/610,066 claim 1 recites limitation wherein recites "and in response to identifying no compliant source: selecting a lowest horizontal location uncertainty from among the plurality of sources; selecting a lowest vertical location uncertainty from among the plurality of sources; and using the selected lowest horizontal location data and the selected lowest vertical location data as captured location data for the user device using the location-based service." is not disclosed in the reference application 18/610,060.
Examiner disagrees, Examiner points to reference application 18/610,060 claim 8 recites "further comprising: in response to identifying no compliant source: selecting a lowest horizontal location uncertainty from among the plurality of sources; selecting a lowest vertical location uncertainty from among the plurality of sources; and using the selected lowest horizontal location data and the selected lowest vertical location data as captured location data for the user device using the location-based service."
Therefore, claim 1 of the present application 18/610,066 reads on claim 8 reference application 18/610,060. Similar analysis applied, claim 8 present application 18/610,066 reads on claim 19 reference application 18/610,060.
Examiner Agrees the claim 7 present application 18/610,066 does not read on claim 1 of reference application 18/610,060 because claim 1 of reference application 18/610,060 has a limitation "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." Similar to claim 14 present application 18/610,066 does not read on claim 14 of reference application 18/610,060 and thus the double patent for claims 7 and 14 of present application 18/610,066 is withdrawn.
Applicant Argues (Pages 8-10, 06/22/2026):
"…Therefore, Zorgui describes a location server as determining if the uncertainty of the estimated location exceeds a threshold, i.e., the accuracy of the estimated location has dropped below a threshold. And if so, the location server instructs the mobile device to start (i.e., active) reporting new sensor data. Accordingly, Zorgui discusses activating the reporting of sensor data in response to the uncertainty of an estimated location being inaccurate. In other words, the location server in Zorgui determines that its estimated location of the mobile device is not accurate and then tells the mobile device to start reporting new sensor data. 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 non-compliant if one of the uncertainties fail to satisfy the threshold, and then selecting a lowest horizontal location uncertainty and a lowest vertical location uncertainty if there are no compliant sources. Therefore, Zorgui fails to describe or suggest the above-recited features of independent claim 1."
Examiner Answer:
Applicant argues "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 non-compliant if one of the uncertainties fail to satisfy the threshold, and then selecting a lowest horizontal location uncertainty and a lowest vertical location uncertainty if there are no compliant sources." Examiner respectfully disagrees, paragraph 80 states "The trigger conditions for deactivating sensor data (considered at block 540) reporting may vary, depending on desired functionality. According to some embodiments, they may echo the trigger conditions for activating the sensor data, but in reverse. 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), (ii) a signal quality metric (e.g., an SNR value) exceeding a threshold, (iii) a frequency of sensor sampling surpassing a threshold, (iv) a frequency of other positioning techniques falling below a threshold, or (v) any combination thereof." Zorgui discloses it can work in reverse as well, meaning when the sensor data reporting is no longer met as in "fails to satisfy the threshold," it would remove the sensor for reporting data. Xiao was used for "in response to identifying no compliant source…"
Applicant Further Argues (Pages 8-10, 06/22/2026):
"Xiao describes comparing the uncertainty values from different location data and then selecting the lowest uncertainty between the two. But comparing uncertainty values from different location data says nothing about "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" 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," as recited in claim 1. In fact, Xiao does not describe the determination of whether a source is compliant or not with respect to specific thresholds (as is claimed), it merely describes comparing two values and selecting the lower of the two. Therefore, Xiao, in combination with Zorgui, fails to describe each and every limitation recited in independent claim 1. Thus, claim 1 is novel and non-obvious over Zorgui in view of Xiao."
Examiner Answer:
As explained previously Zorgui teaches of determining which sources are compliant or non-compliant, see Zorgui paragraph 80. Xiao paragraph 39 states "As discussed above, one or more location reports may be generated. For example, location report 460 may be generated. In some embodiments, location reports may be generated in association to other graphical elements such as maps 410A and 410B. In some embodiments, the location report is generated to include location information for a UE device. In some examples, the location report may include information such as geographic coordinates, altitude, uncertainty values, and/or civic address. In certain embodiments, the contents of a location report may be determined based on satisfying certain criteria, such as the uncertainty value of a DBH location and/or an A-GPS location associated with a UE device. For example, location report 460 includes values for altitude and geographic coordinates. The uncertainty values of the horizontal and vertical components of the DBH location and the A-GPS locations may be compared to determine the contents of the location report 460. The contents of the location report 460 may be selects based on determining the lowest of one or more uncertainty values. For example, the location report 460 may include the geographic coordinates corresponding to the A-GPS location since the horizontal uncertainty value of the A-GPS location is less than the horizontal uncertainty value of the DBH location. Similarly, the location report 460 may include the altitude corresponding to the DBH location since the vertical uncertainty value of the DBH location is less that the vertical uncertainty value of the A-GPS location. In some embodiments the location report 460 may be transmitted to a PSAP." Meaning between multiple sources (A-GPS location, DBH location) it would use the best horizontal and best vertical data from multiple sources.
Claim 1 recites "in response to identifying no compliant source" and because Xiao is using different data from different sources, for example the horizontal data of A-GPS that is compliant, and not the vertical of A-GPS because it is not compliant, therefore, the A-GPS source is not compliant. Similar to DBH location, the horizontal is not compliant, but the vertical data is compliant, thus the DBH location is not compliant. The two no compliant sources need to be combined to create a compliant data source to obtain user location as described in Xiao paragraph 39.
As disclosed in Zorgui paragraph 80 the system tells the UE to remove the sources for measurement reporting, and when the latest measurement report has a scenario wherein two sources are reported but Zorgui system determines those two sources are not compliant and lead the UE reporting with no compliant sources. Thus, examiner introduces Xiao wherein instead of having the UE report with zero sources, Xiao discloses a system of using the best horizontal data (lowest uncertainty) of a non-compliant source and the best of vertical of another non-compliant source to determine the UE location.
Applicant Further Argues (Pages 8-10, 06/22/2026):
"Furthermore, combining Xiao 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 Xiao describes comparing uncertainty values from different location data and then selecting the lowest uncertainty between the two. Therefore, if Xiao was combined with Zorgui, then Zorgui would simply compare uncertainty values of the estimated location of the mobile device and select a lowest value, which would remove the need to instruct the mobile device to activate new sensor data reporting. Thus, combining Xiao with Zorgui would render the system of Zorgui unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Accordingly, the combination of Zorgui and Xiao is improper."
Examiner Answer:
Examiner respectfully disagrees and points above wherein a scenario wherein there are no compliant sources and Xiao teaching of selecting the best vertical and horizontal data between multiple sources. See Examiner answer pages 6-7 paragraph 9 of this office action.
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, and 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 and 19 of copending Application No. 18/610,060 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all limitations of claim 1 (18/610,066) is similar to claim 8 of the reference application. Claim 8 (18/610,066) limitations are similar to claim 19 of the reference application.
Please see the following table for the claim-to-claim analysis.
18/610,066
18/610,060 (Reference)
Claim Interpretation
1. A method, comprising: obtaining, from a plurality of sources, horizontal location data and vertical location data of a user device using a location-based service via a cellular communications network; for each corresponding source of the plurality of sources: determining a horizontal location uncertainty of the horizontal location data for the corresponding source; determining a vertical location uncertainty of the vertical location data for the corresponding source; 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; 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; 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; and in response to identifying no compliant source: selecting a lowest horizontal location uncertainty from among the plurality of sources; selecting a lowest vertical location uncertainty from among the plurality of sources; and using the selected lowest horizontal location data and the selected lowest vertical location data as captured location data for the user device using the location-based service.
1. A method, comprising: obtaining, from a plurality of sources, horizontal location data and vertical location data of a user device using a location-based service via a cellular communications network; for each corresponding source of the plurality of sources: determining a horizontal location uncertainty of the horizontal location data for the corresponding source; determining a vertical location uncertainty of the vertical location data for the corresponding source; 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; 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; 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; 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.
As can be seen with side-by-side, comparison, the only difference is the reference application in independent claim does not have “and in response to identifying no compliant source: selecting a lowest horizontal location uncertainty from among the plurality of sources; selecting a lowest vertical location uncertainty from among the plurality of sources; and using the selected lowest horizontal location data and the selected lowest vertical location data as captured location data for the user device using the location-based service.” And 18/610,066 does not have “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.” However, both these limitations can be found in each other dependent claims. Thus, it is obvious for person skill in the art to take claim 1 in 18/610,060 and remove the limitation “and in response to identifying at least one compliant source…” in claim 1 of the reference application (18/610,060) and add claim 8 of the reference application (18/610,060) a person skilled in the art would arrive to the claim 1 of 18/610,066 as it is an obvious design choice.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to identifying no compliant source: selecting a lowest horizontal location uncertainty from among the plurality of sources; selecting a lowest vertical location uncertainty from among the plurality of sources; and using the selected lowest horizontal location data and the selected lowest vertical location data as captured location data for the user device using the location-based service.
See above explanation, claim 1 of 18/610,066 reads on claim 8 of the reference application (18/610,060).
8. A computing system, comprising: a memory configured to store computer instructions; and a processor configured to execute the computer instructions to: obtain, from a plurality of sources, horizontal location data and vertical location data of a user device using a location-based service via a cellular communications network; for each corresponding source of the plurality of sources: determine a horizontal location uncertainty of the horizontal location data for the corresponding source; determine a vertical location uncertainty of the vertical location data for the corresponding source; determine 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; 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, identify the corresponding source as compliant; 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, identify the corresponding source as non-compliant; and in response to identifying no compliant source: select a lowest horizontal location uncertainty from among the plurality of sources; select a lowest vertical location uncertainty from among the plurality of sources; and use the selected lowest horizontal location data and the selected lowest vertical location data as captured location data for the user device using the location-based service.
14. A computing system, comprising: a memory configured to store computer instructions; and a processor configured to execute the computer instructions to: obtain, from a plurality of sources, horizontal location data and vertical location data of a user device using the location-based service; for each corresponding source of the plurality of sources: determine a horizontal location uncertainty of the horizontal location data for the corresponding source; determine a vertical location uncertainty of the vertical location data for the corresponding source; determine 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; 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, identify the corresponding source as compliant; 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, identify the corresponding source as non-compliant; and in response to identifying at least one compliant source, select an optimum compliant source from the at least one compliant source to provide a location of the user device using the location-based service.
Similar explanation of claim 1 in 18/610,066 vs. claim 8 of reference application. There is an additional element in 18/610,066 of “via a cellular communication” that is not in the reference independent claim 14, but is disclosed in reference 18/610,060, specification paragraph 131 or paragraph 135 of published US-20250039641-A1, “obtaining, from a plurality of sources, horizontal location data and vertical location data of a user device using a location-based service via a cellular communications network;” thus claim 14 of the reference application can also obtain horizontal and vertical data via cellular communication. Examiner further notes the reference claim 1 which is comparable to reference claim 14 has “horizontal location data and vertical location data of a user device using a location-based service via a cellular communications network” and thus not having “via a cellular” in reference claim 14 does not differentiate the claims. Thus claim 8 of 18/610,066 is double patent of claim 19 of the reference application.
19. The computing system of claim 14, wherein the processor is configured to further execute the computer instructions to: in response to identifying no compliant source: select a lowest horizontal location uncertainty from among the plurality of sources; select a lowest vertical location uncertainty from among the plurality of sources; and use the selected lowest horizontal location data and the selected lowest vertical location data as captured location data for the user device using the location-based service.
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.
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) 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zorgui (US-20220322055-A1) in view of Xiao (US-12082091-B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Zorgui discloses a method, comprising: obtaining, from a plurality of sources (paragraph [0064], Fig.3, "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." (i.e., Fusion logic 380 combines plurality of sources for location determination of the user.)),
horizontal location data and vertical location data of a user device using a location-based service (paragraph [0037], "A location of mobile device 105 may comprise an absolute location of mobile device 105 (e.g. a latitude and longitude and possibly altitude) or a relative location of mobile device 105 (e.g. a location expressed as distances north or south, east or west and possibly above or below some other known fixed location or some other location such as a location for mobile device 105 at some known previous time). A location may be specified as a geodetic location comprising coordinates which may be absolute (e.g. latitude, longitude and optionally altitude), relative (e.g. relative to some known absolute location) or local (e.g. X, Y and optionally Z coordinates according to a coordinate system defined relative to a local area such a factory, warehouse, college campus, shopping mall, sports stadium or convention center)." (i.e., obtaining geodetic location such as latitude, and longitude.))
via a cellular communications network (paragraph [0030], "A base station 120 that is a gNB or ng-eNB may be part of a Next Generation Radio Access Network (NG-RAN) which may connect to a 5G Core Network (5GC) in the case that Network 170 is a 5G network. An AP 130 may comprise a Wi-Fi AP or a Bluetooth® AP, for example. Thus, mobile device 105 can send and receive information with network-connected devices, such as location server 160," (i.e., Communicating via gNb, or eNB.));
for each corresponding source of the plurality of sources:
determining a horizontal location uncertainty of the horizontal location data for the corresponding source (paragraph [0037], "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)." (i.e., determining horizontal uncertainty.));
determining a vertical location uncertainty of the vertical location data for the corresponding source (paragraph [0037], "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)." (i.e., determining vertical uncertainty.));
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 (paragraph [0075], "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." and paragraph [0077], "…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 or may be one of many factors considered when activating sensor data reporting." (i.e., the sensor will be used for reporting the location when the uncertainty is not exceeding a threshold or below a threshold for accuracy.)); 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 (paragraph [0080], "The trigger conditions for deactivating sensor data (considered at block 540) reporting may vary, depending on desired functionality. According to some embodiments, they may echo the trigger conditions for activating the sensor data, but in reverse. 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), (ii) a signal quality metric (e.g., an SNR value) exceeding a threshold, (iii) a frequency of sensor sampling surpassing a threshold, (iv) a frequency of other positioning techniques falling below a threshold, or (v) any combination thereof." (i.e., deactivating a sensor since the uncertainty value is not in the desired threshold.)).
However, Zorgui does not disclose in response to identifying no compliant source: selecting a lowest horizontal location uncertainty from among the plurality of sources; selecting a lowest vertical location uncertainty from among the plurality of sources; and using the selected lowest horizontal location data and the selected lowest vertical location data as captured location data for the user device using the location-based service.
Xiao discloses in response to identifying no compliant source (Col. 02, lines 15-24, Fig.4, “However, each of the A-GPS location and the DBH location may be associated with horizontal and vertical uncertainty values. In some situations, the uncertainty values associated with the A-GPS location may vary from the uncertainty values associated with the DBH location which can have significant detrimental consequences because it may obfuscate or be misinforming of the potential area in which a caller may be located, thereby making it more difficult for first responders to quickly find a distressed caller.”):
discloses selecting a lowest horizontal location uncertainty from among the plurality of sources (Col. 09, lines 27-34, Fig.4, "The contents of the location report 460 may be selects based on determining the lowest of one or more uncertainty values. For example, the location report 460 may include the geographic coordinates corresponding to the A-GPS location since the horizontal uncertainty value of the A-GPS location is less than the horizontal uncertainty value of the DBH location." (i.e., selecting A-GPS horizontal location over DBH location because the horizontal uncertainty of A-GPS is less compared to DBH.));
selecting a lowest vertical location uncertainty from among the plurality of sources (Col. 09, lines 34-37, Fig.4, "Similarly, the location report 460 may include the altitude corresponding to the DBH location since the vertical uncertainty value of the DBH location is less that the vertical uncertainty value of the A-GPS location." (i.e., selecting DBH vertical location over A-GPS vertical location because the vertical uncertainty of DBH is less compared to A-GPS.)); and
using the selected lowest horizontal location data and the selected lowest vertical location data as captured location data for the user device using the location-based service (Col.09, lines 24-39, Fig.4, "The uncertainty values of the horizontal and vertical components of the DBH location and the A-GPS locations may be compared to determine the contents of the location report 460. The contents of the location report 460 may be selects based on determining the lowest of one or more uncertainty values…the location report 460 may be transmitted to a PSAP." (i.e., using the selected data for user device location.)).
Zorgui and Xiao are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field locating user devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zorgui to implement the method of Xiao as enables Zorgui to combine vertical and horizontal measurement based on the lowest uncertainty in order to increase the accuracy of finding the location of the user such as emergency situation (Xiao, paragraph [0005], “The horizontal coordinates included in the location report may be selected based on comparing the DBH horizontal uncertainty value to the A-GPS horizontal uncertainty value and selecting the horizontal coordinates based on the lower uncertainty value. Similarly, the vertical coordinates included in the location report may be selected based on comparing the DBH vertical uncertainty value to the A-GPS vertical uncertainty value and selecting the vertical coordinates based on the lower uncertainty value. In this way, a more accurate location report may be generated such that the potential area in which a caller may be located is reduced, making it more likely that first responders will be able to quickly locate the distressed caller.”).
Regarding Claim 2, Zorgui in view of Xiao discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
Zorgui further discloses employing the selected lowest horizontal location data and the selected lowest vertical location data to determine if the cellular communications network is providing compliant location data across a plurality of uses of the location-based service (paragraph [0070], Fig.4, "As further indicated by arrow 470, functions 440, 450, and 460 may be repeated during the positioning session. That is, during a given positioning session, the mobile device 105 may repeat the process of obtaining and providing the measurements/data, which it may do with a configured repetition rate/periodicity. For its part, the location server 160 can update a calculated position of the mobile device 105 correspondingly. Depending on desired functionality, the location server 160 may determine a single device location, or may determine multiple device locations (e.g., updated locations) based on these repetitions." and paragraph [0072], "provide for adaptive sensor activation and deactivation in which the mobile device 105 and/or the location server 160 may activate and deactivate sensor data reporting by the mobile device 105. Switching between these modes of operation (active and inactive) can be done quickly, during a positioning session between the mobile device 105 and location server 160. Accordingly, the mobile device 105 and/or the location server 160 can dynamically activate and deactivate sensor data reporting by the mobile device 105 as needed to accommodate changing conditions that may impact a position determination of the mobile device during a positioning session."(i.e., Xiao discloses of selecting the lowest horizontal and vertical data, Zorgui discloses of a plurality of uses as indicated by Fig.4:470. Therefore, in combination teach the horizontal and vertical data is constantly checked and the sources would be reactivated when compliant as disclosed in Zorgui paragraph 72.)).
Regarding Claim 3, Zorgui in view of Xiao discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
Xiao further discloses wherein selecting the lowest horizontal location uncertainty from among the plurality of sources comprises: selecting the lowest horizontal location uncertainty from a first source that is separate from a second source from which the lowest vertical location uncertainty is selected (Col. 09, lines 12-37, Fig.4:460, "location report 460 may be generated. In some embodiments, location reports may be generated in association to other graphical elements such as maps 410A and 410B. In some embodiments, the location report is generated to include location information for a UE device. In some examples, the location report may include information such as geographic coordinates, altitude, uncertainty values, and/or civic address. In certain embodiments, the contents of a location report may be determined based on satisfying certain criteria, such as the uncertainty value of a DBH location and/or an A-GPS location associated with a UE device. For example, location report 460 includes values for altitude and geographic coordinates. The uncertainty values of the horizontal and vertical components of the DBH location and the A-GPS locations may be compared to determine the contents of the location report 460. The contents of the location report 460 may be selects based on determining the lowest of one or more uncertainty values. For example, the location report 460 may include the geographic coordinates corresponding to the A-GPS location since the horizontal uncertainty value of the A-GPS location is less than the horizontal uncertainty value of the DBH location. Similarly, the location report 460 may include the altitude corresponding to the DBH location since the vertical uncertainty value of the DBH location is less that the vertical uncertainty value of the A-GPS location." (i.e., the location report 460 is generated based on the lowest uncertainty, and the lowest uncertainty can either be horizontal or vertical of A-GPS and horizontal or vertical of DBH, and then combined to produce the location of the user device.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 4, Zorgui in view of Xiao discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
Xiao further discloses wherein selecting the lowest vertical location uncertainty from among the plurality of sources comprises: selecting the lowest vertical location uncertainty from a first source that is separate from a second source from which the lowest horizontal location uncertainty is selected (Col. 09, lines 12-37, Fig.4:460, "location report 460 may be generated. In some embodiments, location reports may be generated in association to other graphical elements such as maps 410A and 410B. In some embodiments, the location report is generated to include location information for a UE device. In some examples, the location report may include information such as geographic coordinates, altitude, uncertainty values, and/or civic address. In certain embodiments, the contents of a location report may be determined based on satisfying certain criteria, such as the uncertainty value of a DBH location and/or an A-GPS location associated with a UE device. For example, location report 460 includes values for altitude and geographic coordinates. The uncertainty values of the horizontal and vertical components of the DBH location and the A-GPS locations may be compared to determine the contents of the location report 460. The contents of the location report 460 may be selects based on determining the lowest of one or more uncertainty values. For example, the location report 460 may include the geographic coordinates corresponding to the A-GPS location since the horizontal uncertainty value of the A-GPS location is less than the horizontal uncertainty value of the DBH location. Similarly, the location report 460 may include the altitude corresponding to the DBH location since the vertical uncertainty value of the DBH location is less that the vertical uncertainty value of the A-GPS location." (i.e., See claim 3 rejections for the explanation. Xiao discloses “compare” so even though Xiao explicitly teaches one example which is the horizontal uncertainty, the vertical uncertainty is also compared in paragraph 39 because the data between DBH, and A-GPS is being compared for the lowest uncertainty to determine the user location.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 5, Zorgui in view of Xiao discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
Zorgui further discloses further comprising: determining that the horizontal location data and the vertical location data obtained from the plurality of sources were captured for a same use of the location-based service (paragraph [0064], Fig.3, "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." and paragraph [0072], Fig.4, "To address these and other issues, embodiments provide for adaptive sensor activation and deactivation in which the mobile device 105 and/or the location server 160 may activate and deactivate sensor data reporting by the mobile device 105. Switching between these modes of operation (active and inactive) can be done quickly, during a positioning session between the mobile device 105 and location server 160." (i.e., The Fusion logic 380 combines data of sensor and RAT technologies for locating a user.)).
(Alternative Rejection) Regarding Claim 5, Zorgui in view of Xiao discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
Xiao further discloses further comprising: determining that the horizontal location data and the vertical location data obtained from the plurality of sources were captured for a same use of the location-based service (Col. 08, lines 1-4, Fig.4, “FIG. 4 depicts an example graphical user interface (GUI) 400 for uncertainty based selection for location reporting in E911 systems, in accordance with implementation of the present disclosure.” and Col. 08, lines 16-18, “The maps 410A and 410B may include an indication of an estimated UE location associated with a UE device such as UE locations 420A and 420B…” and Col. 08, lines 41-44, “The GUI 400 may include indication of a vertical component of UE locations 420A and 420B associated with a search area defined by the vertical uncertainty of the DBH locations and the A-GPS locations.” (i.e., using multiple sources of vertical and horizontal data for emergency service such as E911.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 6, Zorgui in view of Xiao discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
Xiao further discloses wherein the user device using the location-based service include the user device making a 911 call (abstract, "generate an E911 location report…thus providing the most relevant and accurate information so that first responders can more effectively locate a distressed caller." and Col. 08, lines 16-22, Fig.4, "The maps 410A and 410B may include an indication of an estimated UE location associated with a UE device such as UE locations 420A and 420B. In some embodiments, UE locations, such as UE locations 420A and 420B, may be associated with a UE device that has initiated a communication, such as a call from a caller seeking emergency services." (i.e., Location of user is being determined based on the distressed caller.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 8, which is similar in scope to claim 1, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Examiner notes Zorgui discloses a system (Fig.1, paragraphs [0027] – [0028]), processor, and memory (paragraph [0105], Fig.9, “processing unit(s) 910, digital signal processor (DSP) 920, the wireless communication interface 930, sensor(s) 940, memory 960,”).
Regarding Claim 9, which is similar in scope to claim 2, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 10, which is similar in scope to claim 3, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 11, which is similar in scope to claim 4, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 12, which is similar in scope to claim 5 or (Alternative Rejection) Claim 5, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 13, which is similar in scope to claim 6, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 15, which is similar in scope to claim 1, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Examiner notes Zorgui discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium (paragraph [0009], “An example non-transitory computer-readable medium…”).
Regarding Claim 16, which is similar in scope to claim 2, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 17, which is similar in scope to claim 3, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 18, which is similar in scope to claim 4, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 19, which is similar in scope to claim 5 or (Alternative Rejection) Claim 5, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 20, which is similar in scope to claim 6, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zorgui (US-20220322055-A1) in view of Xiao (US-12082091-B1) in further view of Nykanen (US-20020173317-A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Zorgui in view of Xiao discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
However, Zorgui in view of Xiao do not disclose further comprising: in response to identifying at least one compliant source, selecting an optimum compliant source from the at least one compliant source.
Nykanen discloses further comprising: in response to identifying at least one compliant source, selecting an optimum compliant source from the at least one compliant source (paragraph [0037], Fig.2A, "In step 2a-1 the intelligent positioning service determines whether both sources of positioning information are available and of sufficient accuracy." and paragraph [0039], "If in step 2a-1 it is determined that both sources are available and of sufficient accuracy…" and paragraph [0042], "Otherwise, flow proceeds to step 2a-23 where the intelligent positioning server compares the accuracy of the two sources of location information. If terminal-originated location information is found to be more accurate, flow proceeds to step 2a-90 where that source is used. If network originated location information is found to be more accurate, flow proceeds to step 2a-99 where that source is used."(i.e., Nykanen discloses when multiple sources are in sufficient accuracy to then pick the one of the two sources with the most accuracy.)).
Zorgui in view Xiao and Nykanen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field locating user devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zorgui to implement the method of Nykanen because it is obvious to try to choose the best source in order to obtain the best location of the user device. Additionally, Nykanen discloses of charging user extra for a more accuracy location thus increasing revenue for providing service such as location determination (Nykanen, paragraph [0039], “Accordingly, in some embodiments, a location information request may include some indication of what surcharge is acceptable for higher quality location information. Alternately, the intelligent positioning service may query the one who will be paying for the data and/or a machine authorized to make the decision for that individual or entity.”).
Regarding Claim 14, which is similar in scope to claim 7, thus rejected under the same rationale.
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 Erkin S. Abdullaev whose telephone number is (571)272-4135. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday - 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571)272-7867. 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.
ERKIN S. ABDULLAEV
Examiner
Art Unit 2648
/ERKIN ABDULLAEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights