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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 3/20/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/15/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the 03/24/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 20 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim 20 recites “means for receiving”, “means for determining”, and “means for estimating”. In the specification, paragraphs [0049]-[0051] disclose the structure used to limit claim 20. As such, “means for receiving” will be interpreted to mean “An AP 300, including the processor 310 and the receiver 344 is a means for configuring the plurality of receive chains”, “means for determining” will be interpreted to mean “The AP 300, including the processor 310 and the receiver 344 is a means for configuring the plurality of receive chains. In an example, the AP 300 may receive an indication from an external resource (e.g., the server 806) to perform GNSS operations.”, and “means for estimating” will be interpreted to mean “The AP 300, including the processor 310 and the memory 311 is a means for estimating the position of the wireless node.”.
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 4 and 14 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. These claims use the term “overlapping master neighbor (OMN) messages” which is not defined in the specification, and it is not a well-defined term in the art.
The term “overlapping master neighbor (OMN) messages” is being interpreted as “a message sent out by a master device to one or more neighboring devices for address and channel setup”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 10-12, 14, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krasner, U. S. Patent Publication 6111540 published on 2000-08-29 (hereinafter Krasner).
As for independent claim 1, Krasner discloses an apparatus and a method for obtaining a position estimate with an access point, comprising: receiving, with one or more receive chains in the access point, radio frequency signals associated with a wireless network transmitted from a plurality of user equipment;
(Krasner Col 3, Lines 46-54 and Col 6, Lines 45-47 disclose an access point (called a base station) receiving communication signals and attached to the access point is a circuit capable of receiving GPS and other communication, “An example of a combined GPS and communication system having shared circuitry is shown in FIG. 1A. A combined mobile unit 100 includes circuitry for performing the functions required for processing GPS signals as well as the functions required for processing communication signals received through a communication link. The communication link, such as communication link 14a, is typically a radio frequency communication link to another component, such as a basestation…assigns such users to other channels in which they may communicate”)
determining a positioning opportunity; receiving, with at least one of the one or more receive chains, radio frequency signals transmitted from a satellite vehicle based at least in part on determining the positioning opportunity; and estimating a position of the access point based at least in part on the radio frequency signals transmitted from the satellite vehicle
(Krasner Col 6, Lines 51-64 discloses determining a position opportunity (by interpreting a command to find the position) and receiving GPS signals based on that command “If there is a command to determine position, which may be referred to as a GPS command… The receiver then enters the GPS mode, and Processor 10 retunes the receiver to the GPS band and collects and processes the GPS signals… In step 25, the processor 10 calculates position information from the GPS signals”; Krasner Col 6 Line 20“receiving a GPS signal (e.g. from a GPS satellite)”)
As for claim 2, the limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed. Krasner discloses an apparatus and a method comprising determining the positioning opportunity includes receiving an indication from a network resource to perform navigation operations and receiving radio frequency signals transmitted from the satellite vehicle with at least one of the one or more receive chains is based at least in part on the indication.
(Krasner Col 6, Lines 51-64 and Col 8, Lines 17-20 discloses determining a position opportunity (collects and processes the GPS signals) by an indication received from a network resource (called a base station). “ If there is a command to determine position, which may be referred to as a GPS command …. The receiver then enters the GPS mode, and Processor 10 retunes the receiver to the GPS band and collects and processes the GPS signals… The flow chart of FIG. 3 begins at step 101 with a command from the basestation 17 to initialize a GPS processing”)
As for claim 4, the limitations of parent claim 2 have been discussed. Krasner discloses an apparatus and a method wherein the indication is included in one or more overlapping master neighbor (OMN) messages.
(Krasner paragraph Col 6, Lines 51-54 discloses the access point receiving and sending channel, address, and location setup messages (which is the same as an OMN) as those messages including a position request command, “This is a channel (typical of cellular networks) that broadcasts addresses of users for which there are messages and assigns such users to other channels in which they may communicate… If there is a command to determine position, which may be referred to as a GPS command”)
As for claim 10, the limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed. Krasner discloses an apparatus and a method wherein receiving radio frequency signals transmitted from the satellite vehicle with at least one of the one or more receive chains includes coupling an antenna patch to the least one of the one or more receive chains
(Krasner Col 3 Lines 54-56 disclose the receive chain having antennas, “The combined mobile unit 100 includes a GPS antenna 1 and a communication antenna”)
As for independent claim 11, claim 11 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale. As for the structural limitations of claim 11, Krasner discloses at least one memory; a plurality of receive chains communicatively coupled to at least one transceiver; at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one memory and the at least one transceiver:
(Krasner FIG. 1A shows a memory (19), receive chains (whole figure), a transceiver (5), and a processor (10))
As for claim 12, the limitations of parent claim 11 have been discussed. Claim 12 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 2 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 14, the limitations of parent claim 12 have been discussed. Claim 14 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 4 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 19, the limitations of parent claim 11 have been discussed. Claim 19 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 10 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for independent claim 20, claim 20 reflects article of manufacture for implementing method in claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale.
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.
Claims 3, 9, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krasner in view of Nakajima et al, U. S. Patent Publication No. 6559794 published on 2003-05-06 (hereinafter Nakajima).
As for claim 3, the limitations of parent claim 2 have been discussed. Nakajima discloses an apparatus and a method wherein the indication includes one or more time periods.
(Nakajima Col 2 Lines 26-29 disclose a controller controlling a position determining unit indicating it should determine its position for a set period of time, “a controller which controls a time interval at which the position of the receiver is determined by said position determining unit”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Nakajima with Krasner in order to conserve power by controlling how long the GPS unit is active.
As for claim 9, the limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed. Nakijima discloses an apparatus and a method comprising transmitting schedule information to the plurality of user equipment, wherein the schedule information corresponds to a time period when the access point is configured to receive radio frequency signals transmitted from the satellite vehicle,
(Nakijima Col 10 Lines 57-62 and Col 12 Lines 53-56 disclose the GPS signals and time intervals being sent to the user and the GPS signals being received for a predetermined amount of time “The GPS processor 3 controls the display unit to display a navigation image for informing the user of the present position, and stores the time the present position has been determined in the RAM … During the predetermined period of time A, the GPS processor 3 continues to be activated, that is, the electric current is supplied thereto, and it can continuously receive the signals from the satellites”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Nakajima with Krasner to better control how long the GPS signals are received.
As for claim 13, the limitations of parent claim 12 have been discussed. Claim 13 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 3 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 5, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krasner in view of Shellhammer et al, WIPO Patent Publication No. 2012097341 published on 2012-07-19 (hereinafter Shellhammer).
As for claim 5, the limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed. Shellhammer discloses an apparatus and a method comprising determining the positioning opportunity is based at least in part on one or more of a time of day, network traffic information, historical information, network configuration information, and combinations thereof.
(Shellhammer paragraph [0008], [0080], and [00101] discloses an access point which can determine its location using GPS and some inputs of this method being the configuration (Mode II), history, the time of day (schedule a quiet time), and network traffic (traffic indication map), “The portable Mode II devices may need to have geo-location capability… the AP may schedule a quiet time for itself… the AP may transmit one or more traffic indication map (TIM) messages and delivery traffic indication map (DTIM) messages on a regular basis. Inside each TIM, a counter may be present that counts down to the next DTIM. The AP may use this structure to schedule transmission of a DTIM immediately before transmitting a CVS message”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Shellhammer with Krasner to allow for more detailed control of the access point functions
As for claim 15, the limitations of parent claim 11 have been discussed. Claim 15 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 5 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Claims 6-8, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krasner in view of Fischer et al, U. S. Patent Publication No. 20220373636 publish on 2022-11-24 (hereinafter Fischer).
As for claim 6, the limitations of parent claim 1 have been discussed. Fischer discloses an apparatus and a method wherein the determining the positioning opportunity is based at least in part on an available processing capability of the access point
(Fischer paragraph [0091] discloses a device (UE) taking its processing capabilities into account when determining if it can do a position finding task (called a position technique) “Positioning techniques may be characterized and/or assessed based on one or more criteria such as position determination accuracy and/or latency… Latency may depend on processing capability”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Fischer with Krasner to better prioritize position finding tasks.
As for claim 7, the limitations of parent claim 6 have been discussed. Fischer discloses an apparatus and a method wherein the determining the available processing capability of the access point is based on a processing unit utilization level being below a threshold value.
(Fischer paragraph [0116] discloses a UE not being assigned more position opportunity (called DL PRS) if the processing capability is maxed out, “The UE processing capability may indicate a maximum number of DL PRS resources that a UE can process in a slot under it.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Fischer with Krasner to better prioritize position finding tasks.
As for claim 8, the limitations of parent claim 6 have been discussed. Fischer discloses an apparatus and a method wherein the determining the available processing capability of the access point is based on a number of user equipment in the plurality of user equipment being below a threshold.
(Fischer paragraph [0091] discloses a device (UE) being limited by the number of devices (TRPs) can process position determination opportunities (called PRS), “Other examples of capabilities that may affect latency are a number of TRPs from which the UE can process PRS, a number of PRS that the UE can process, and a bandwidth of the UE.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Fischer with Krasner to better prioritize position finding tasks.
As for claim 16, the limitations of parent claim 11 have been discussed. Claim 16 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 6 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 17, the limitations of parent claim 16 have been discussed. Claim 17 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 7 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for claim 18, the limitations of parent claim 16 have been discussed. Claim 18 reflects article of manufacture comprising computer executable instructions for implementing method in claim 8 and is rejected along the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C LAWRENCE whose telephone number is (571)272-9833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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, Jeanette Parker can be reached at (571) 270-3647. 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.
/JOHN CALEB LAWRENCE/Examiner, Art Unit 2646
/JEANETTE J PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights