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 .
This office action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 05/18/2026. Claims 1 – 16 are currently pending in this application.
The Applicant's arguments to the claims rejection are fully considered, however they are not deemed to be persuasive; for examiner response to the Applicant’s arguments see “Response to Arguments” section below.
Response to Arguments
On pages 9 – 10 of the Remarks, while arguing rejection of independent claims, the Applicant initially argues that the embodiment of Smith’s FIG 1 is related to the ranging procedure for devices that “do not share a common clock”. The Applicant cites several paragraphs from Smith underlining this idea about not sharing a common clock.
However, it is not clear the purpose of this argument since independent claims have nothing regarding clocks of the devices, whether they are synchronized or not. Therefore, this argument appears to be irrelevant to the actual claimed subject matter of independent claims. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., whether the clocks are common or synchronized) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The limitations on which the Applicant relies (i.e., whether the clocks are common or synchronized) are not stated in the claims. It is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is claims, not specifications that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
Further, in the paragraph joining pages 10 and 11 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues applicability of the embodiment of Smith’s FIG 26 to the rejection and its combination with the embodiment of FIG 31. The Applicant states the following:
“Nothing in those paragraphs discloses or suggests that ED(x) in Figure 31 determines a displacement vector during the request/response Rx-Tx interval, transmits that vector to AD 3103, or causes AD 3103 to determine its location based on the claimed trio of the first receive-transmit time difference, the second device's interval-specific displacement vector, and the second receive-transmit time difference.”
This was addressed by the Examiner in the previous office action in the paragraph joining pages 4 and 5. Particularly, the Examiner stated that Smith in paragraph 0309 teaches that the location query response 3109 may also include location information and/or any other information requested via the location query request 3107. Additionally, in FIG 31 Smith suggests that if AD or ED(x) is traveling at high rate of speed, may need to address the delay in ED(x) processing the request. This means that the device ED(x) may shift in space between reception of the query request 3107 and transmission of the query response 3109, which needs to be addressed in calculations.
This is also shown at the bottom of FIG 31, also reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
801
863
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In other words, there is clear suggestion already present in FIG 31 that this displacement of one or both of the devices needs to be addressed. And this is exactly what embodiment of FIG 26 does.
With respect to combining the embodiments, combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
The Applicant continues and in the first paragraph of page 12 of the Remarks, states that allegedly
“In contrast, the claimed displacement vector is not merely auxiliary historical information. It is a core mathematical parameter of the positioning equation that directly determines the focal points of the ellipsoidal/elliptical positioning area.”
However, it is not clear the purpose of this argument since independent claims have nothing regarding the alleged “displacement vector” “that directly determines the focal points of the ellipsoidal/elliptical positioning area”. Therefore, this argument appears to be irrelevant to the actual claimed subject matter of independent claims. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “displacement vector” “that directly determines the focal points of the ellipsoidal/elliptical positioning area”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The limitations on which the Applicant relies (i.e., “displacement vector” “that directly determines the focal points of the ellipsoidal/elliptical positioning area”) are not stated in the claims. It is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is claims, not specifications that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
Similarly, with respect to the second paragraph on page 12 of the Remarks, the Applicant presents various statements that have nothing to do with the actual subject matter of independent claims, particularly regarding alleged difference in architecture and so forth. There is nothing, zilch, in independent claims requiring special architecture in transmitting query and responses that would be different from the process of Smith’s FIG 31.
Lastly, with respect to the independent claims, in the paragraph bridging pages 12 and 13 of the Remarks, the Applicant alleges that the Examiner presented no reasoning for combining these two embodiments. In response, the Examiner would like to remind the Applicant that the Examiner presented complete explanation (see pages 5 and 6 of the previous office action) of how and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the teaching related to Smith’s FIG 26 into the embodiment of FIG 31 based on suggestion already included at the bottom of FIG 31.
Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims are not found to be persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
With respect to rejection of claim 2, in the paragraph bridging pages 13 – 14 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that Reis is not applicable to the rejection because allegedly Reis “is limited to compensating for the single device’s own movement”. The Applicant then alleges that this would require multiple and significant steps in changing the method of Smith.
In response, the Examiner would like to once again bring the Applicant’s attention to the bottom of FIG 31 suggesting that both devices (AD and/or ED(x)) may be traveling at high speed during the process which needs to be addressed. The embodiment of FIG 26 addresses traveling of the other device. On the other side, Reis addresses traveling of the device itself. Therefore, these two things do not appear to interfere with each other, in contrast, they seem to be complementary to each other. With respect to alleging, at the top of page 14 of the Remarks, three different requirements that would need to be addressed, according to the Applicant, while incorporating the teaching of Reis into Smith, the Applicant presented no evidence of this allegation. In other words, the Applicant has not explained, with evidence, how they have come to this conclusion.
Since Smith and Reis teach prior art elements that perform their ordinary functions to predictably result in the disputed claim limitation, the proposed combination would have been within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan. Applying the Reis technique in the Smith method would have predictably used prior art elements according to their established functions - an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. The Applicant has not provided persuasive evidence to show incorporating Reis’s teaching into Smith’s method would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or would have “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19 (2007)). Thus, the three requirements alleged by the Applicant at the top of page 14 of the Remarks merely represent attorney arguments. However, such mere attorney conclusory statements which are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and Ex parte Belinne, 2009 WF 2477843, at *3^4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative).
Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 2 are not found to be persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
With respect to rejection of claim 3 in view of Feki, on pages 14 – 15, the Applicant presents various arguments which do not seem to be based on the subject matter recited by the claim itself, but appear to be based on the specification.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., specific portions of specification) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The limitations on which the Applicant relies (i.e., specific portions of specification) are not stated in the claims. It is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is claims, not specifications that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
The Examiner would like to reiterate that first, claim 3 does not require this shape to be used for any purpose. Second, with respect to specific requirements for the two focal points and the length of a major axis, the claim does not require these values, or the shape itself, to be used for any purpose, nor does it require determination of any of these values as part of the method. In other words, the claim does not require actual determination of these values, they are simply given as mathematical relation. Therefore, these requirements are treated simply as arbitrary or as design choice. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to assign any numerical values to the parameters of the ellipse, including those specified by the claim, simply as design choice with predictable results, the results being specific dimensions and shape of the ellipse.
Additionally or alternatively, the limitations of the claim merely amount to a statement of intended use or environment in which the device is used and thus this recitation does not have to be given patentable weight. “[a]n intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” See Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Elaborating on that, as the MPEP in 2111.02(II) states, during examination, statements reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim.
Now considering the claim, there would be absolutely no difference in the operation of the method of claim 1, as claimed regardless of the particular characteristics of the shape of the area in which the first device is located.
Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 3 are not found to be persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
With respect to rejection of claim 3 in view of YERRAMALLI and in response to the Applicant’s arguments presented on page 15, the same considerations presented by the Examiner above with respect to rejection of claim 3 in view of Feki would equally apply to rejection of claim 3 in view of YERRAMALLI and thus would not be repeated here.
With respect to rejection of claim 6, in the paragraph bridging pages 16 – 17 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that Edge is not applicable to the rejection because allegedly Edge’s modulo operation is performed in “a fundamentally different context”. The Applicant then alleges that this would require multiple and significant steps in changing the method of Smith.
In response, since Smith and Edge teach prior art elements that perform their ordinary functions to predictably result in the disputed claim limitation, the proposed combination would have been within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan. Applying the Edge technique in the Smith method would have predictably used prior art elements according to their established functions - an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. The Applicant has not provided persuasive evidence to show incorporating Edge’s teaching into Smith’s method would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or would have “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19 (2007)). Thus, the three requirements alleged by the Applicant in the paragraph bridging pages 16 and 17 of the Remarks merely consist of attorney arguments. However, such mere attorney conclusory statements which are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and Ex parte Belinne, 2009 WF 2477843, at *3^4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative).
Additionally, with respect to the Applicant’s allegation that “The modulo operation in Claim 6 is applied to the first and second receive-transmit time differences that, together with displacement vectors, define an ellipsoidal/elliptical positioning area” have no support in the actual wording of claim 6. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., [the modulo operation in Claim 6] … together with displacement vectors, define an ellipsoidal/elliptical positioning area) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The limitations on which the Applicant relies (i.e., [the modulo operation in Claim 6] … together with displacement vectors, define an ellipsoidal/elliptical positioning area) are not stated in the claims. It is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is claims, not specifications that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 6 are not found to be persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
With respect to rejection of claim 8, in the paragraph bridging pages 18 – 23 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that Bao is not applicable to the rejection because allegedly (numbers added by the Examiner),
“[1] Bao's location server does not receive displacement vectors from UEs, [2] nor does it establish ellipsoidal/elliptical positioning areas based on relative displacement between devices. [3] Furthermore, Bao's joint positioning is a centralized process where the location server selects PRS resources, configures measurements, and computes positions. The third device recited in claim 8 simply forwards the first receive- transmit time difference and displacement vector from the second device to the first device, enabling the first device to perform positioning resolution itself⁹. Such a distributed positioning architecture is neither disclosed nor suggested by Bao.”
With respect to [1], although the Applicant is correct that “Bao's location server does not receive displacement vectors from UEs”, usage of displacement vectors in position determination is disclosed or at least fairly suggested by Smith. In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Since these displacement vectors are part of the position determination process, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that they need to be also sent to Bao’s location server or otherwise, the determined position would not be accurate.
With respect to [2], as was already pointed out above, independent claims have nothing regarding the alleged “establish ellipsoidal/elliptical positioning areas based on relative displacement between devices”. Therefore, this argument appears to be irrelevant to the actual claimed subject matter of independent claims. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “establish ellipsoidal/elliptical positioning areas based on relative displacement between devices”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The limitations on which the Applicant relies (i.e., “establish ellipsoidal/elliptical positioning areas based on relative displacement between devices”) are not stated in the claims. It is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is claims, not specifications that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
With respect to [3], the claim’s language is so broad that there is no specific requirement that it is the first device that performs positioning itself, as the Applicant tries to allege. Within the concept of broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 8 may also be interpreted as determining a location of the first device by the “third device”, such as Bao’s location server. This may also be confirmed by the Applicant’s own embodiments of FIG 22 and 23 where it is the network element that determines location of the first device.
Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 8 are not found to be persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
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 14 – 16 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the displacement vector of the first device" in line 5 from the end of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 15 and 16 are also rejected as being dependent from the rejected base claim.
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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160127871 (Smith).
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches “A positioning method (shown in FIG 31 with corresponding description) comprising:
receiving, by a first device (Par. 0308: receiving, by a device AD 3103 a location query response 3109), a first receive-transmit time difference…” “…of a second device (device ED(x) 3101), wherein the first receive-transmit time difference is a time difference between receiving time of a first reference signal and sending time of a second reference signal (Par. 0308 – 0309: the location query response 3109 includes information identifying the time difference (“the first receive-transmit time difference”) between when ED(x) 3101 received the location query request 3107 (“a first reference signal” as applied specifically with respect to device ED(x) 3101) and when ED(x) 3101 transmitted the location query response 3109 (“sending time of a second reference signal” as applied specifically with respect to device ED(x) 3101).), the first reference signal is a reference signal of the first device received by the second device (Par. 0308: AD 3103 sends a location query request 3107 for position updates to ED(x) 3101.), the second reference signal is a reference signal sent by the second device (Par. 0308: ED(x) 3101 sends a location query response 3109)…”
“…determining a location of the first device (Par. 0307: FIG. 31 illustrates communication and information flows in a system configured to determine the range between two devices) based on the first receive-transmit time difference…” “…and a second receive-transmit time difference (See FIG 31: Range 1X=[T1(a)-T1(b)-(Tx(a)-Tx(b)]/2, where “the first receive-transmit time difference” is represented by (Tx(a)-Tx(b)), and “a second receive-transmit time difference” is represented by T1(a)-T1(b)), wherein the second receive-transmit time difference is a time difference between receiving time of a third reference signal and sending time of a fourth reference signal (Par. 0309: AD 3103 may record the time that it sent the location query request 3107 (“a fourth reference signal” as applied specifically with respect to device AD 3103).), record the time it received the location query response 3109 from ED(x) 3101 (“a third reference signal” as applied specifically with respect to device AD 3103).), and use this information to determine a total time delay.), the third reference signal is a reference signal of the second device received by the first device (Par. 0308: ED(x) 3101 sends a location query response 3109), and the fourth reference signal is a reference signal sent by the first device (Par. 0308: AD 3103 sends a location query request 3107).”
Smith does not disclose in the description that “a displacement vector” of the second device is also received by the first device, wherein “the displacement vector of the second device is a displacement of the second device in a time period corresponding to the first receive-transmit time difference” and that the determination of the location of the first device is also based on “the displacement vector of the second device”.
However, Smith in paragraph 0309 teaches that the location query response 3109 may also include location information and/or any other information requested via the location query request 3107. Additionally, in FIG 31 Smith suggests that if AD or ED(x) is traveling at high rate of speed, may need to address the delay in ED(x) processing the request. This means that the device ED(x) may shift in space between reception of the query request 3107 and transmission of the query response 3109, which needs to be addressed in calculations.
On the other side, in a different embodiments of FIG 26 with corresponding description, Smith teaches an example system 2600 that includes two mobile devices 102, 2601 that are configured to collaborate to determine their respective locations with a high degree of accuracy. The first mobile device 2601 may be configured to determine/compute its location at various times (e.g., at t=t−1; t=0; etc.), and provide this location information (INFO A) to the second mobile device 102. The second mobile device 102 may generate location information (INFO B), use the received location information (INFO A) to determine, compute, or generate more precise location information (INFO B′). Paragraph 0284: communications between the mobile devices 102, 2601 occur at time t=0 (this includes ranging), and the location of a device at time t=0 may be represented as (0,0). In other words, during the process of ranging, the device 2601 moves along the vector “A L0” representing the distance 2603 that the first mobile device 2601 travels or moves between times t=t−1 and t=0. Paragraph 0285: Vector AB (−1,0) represents sounding data (i.e., ranging) that is established between the mobile devices at time t=t−1. Vector AB (0,0) represents sounding data for time t=0. These two vectors may be adjusted to account for the relative differences in values for either the first mobile device 2601 (A), the second mobile device 102 (B), or for both devices. Paragraph 0286: due to the ranging information between A and B at both t=−1 and t=0, at least points A(t−1) and A(t=0) are known to the mobile device 102 after the communication exchange at time t=0. This information is used to determine location of the device 102.
In other words, vector A L0 representing the distance 2603 that the first mobile device 2601 travels or moves between times t=t−1 and t=0 may correspond to the “displacement vector of a second device” of instant claim, and since this location information is provided to the device 102 as INFO A (thus corresponding to claimed “receiving, by a first device” “a displacement vector of a second device”) to be used in location determination for the device 102, this corresponds to “determining a location of the first device based on” “the displacement vector of the second device”.
Therefore, since Smith in FIG 31 explicitly states that in case ED(x) is traveling at high rate of speed, the delay in ED(x) processing the request needs to be addressed since the device ED(x) may shift in space between reception of the query request 3107 and transmission of the query response 3109, and the solution of FIG 26 addresses relative movement of the devices during location determination, to combine the teaching of FIG 26 of transmission of movement vector of the second device to the first device to be used in location determination, into the method of FIG 31, so that the device ED(x) would transmit, within the query response 3109, to the device AD, information on its movement vector between reception of the query request 3107 and transmission of the query response 3109, to be used by the device AD in its location determination. Doing so would have allowed to determine the location of the device AD more accurately (see Smith, paragraph 0281).
Additional explanations may be found in section Response to Arguments above which is incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claim 7, this claim is for a method performed by a second device which is reciprocal to the method of claim 1 performed by a first device.
In the rejection of claim 1 above, it was shown that the disclosure of Smith teaches or at least fairly suggests all steps of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the disclosure of Smith also teaches or at least fairly suggest all steps of the method of claim 7. For complete explanation please see the rejection of claim 1 above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160127871 (Smith) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20210311203 (Reis).
Regarding claim 2, while generally suggesting in FIG 31 that if AD or ED(x) is traveling at high rate of speed, may need to address the delay in ED(x) processing the request, Smith does not explicitly teach “determining the location of the first device based on a displacement vector of the first device, wherein the displacement vector of the first device is a displacement of the first device in a time period corresponding to the second receive-transmit time difference.”
Reis in FIG 13 and paragraph 0112 also teaches a ranging method between two devices in which mobile device 230 transmits a message 1320a from a first location “A” towards a communication satellite 210. While the radio message is in flight, the mobile device moves from location “A” to location “B”. When the mobile device arrives at location “B” it receives the response signal 1320b from the satellite. Paragraph 0113 further states that the determined location using the messages would not be accurate, and to determine the exact location of the device when it receives the response message, the method may fuse (combine) the estimated traveled distance during the message flight time with the average location “C”.
In other words, Reis teaches “determining the location of the first device (mobile device 230 in FIG 13) based on a displacement vector of the first device, wherein the displacement vector of the first device is a displacement of the first device in a time period corresponding to the second receive-transmit time difference (paragraph 0113: the estimated traveled distance during the message flight time).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application, based on suggestion of Smith as explained above, to utilize disclosed by Reis estimated traveled distance of the first device during the message flight time, in the method of Smith shown in FIG 31. Doing so would have resulted in a more accurate location determination of the first device.
Additional explanations may be found in section Response to Arguments above which is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160127871 (Smith) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 2437549 (Feki).
Regarding claim 3, Smith teaches “wherein the location of the first device is in a first area (implicit: the location of the first device is always going to be in some kind of area)…”
Smith does not teach that “a shape of the first area is an ellipsoid or an ellipse, two focal points of the first area are head and tail endpoints of a first vector, a length of a major axis of the first area is a distance corresponding to a sum of the second receive-transmit time difference and the first receive-transmit time difference, and the first vector is a sum of the displacement vector of the first device and the displacement vector of the second device.”
Feki in FIG 3 and paragraphs 0051 – 0052 teaches that “the location of the first device is in a first area; and a shape of the first area is an ellipsoid or an ellipse (a service area SAt in the form of an ellipse. A current position of the mobile radio communication terminal corresponds to the center of the ellipse, the direction of the long axis may be roughly parallel to the current direction (defined by the direction vector Ai,t-1Ai,t) of the mobile radio communication terminal's trajectory.)…”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to define the area of the location of Smith’s first device as an ellipse, as disclosed by Feki, simply as design choice with predictable results since the claim does not require this shape to be used for any purpose.
With respect to specific requirements for the two focal points and the length of a major axis, the claim does not require these values, or the shape itself, to be used for any purpose, nor does it require determination of any of these values as part of the method. Therefore, these requirements are treated simply as arbitrary. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to assign any numerical values to the parameters of the ellipse, including those specified by the claim, simply as design choice with predictable results, the results being specific dimensions and shape of the ellipse.
Additionally or alternatively, the limitations of the claim merely amount to a statement of intended use or environment in which the device is used and thus this recitation does not have to be given patentable weight. “[a]n intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” See Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Elaborating on that, as the MPEP in 2111.02(II) states, during examination, statements reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim.
Now considering the claim, there would be absolutely no difference in the operation of the method of claim 1, as claimed regardless of the particular characteristics of the shape of the area in which the first device is located.
Additional explanations may be found in section Response to Arguments above which is incorporated herein by reference.
Claims 3 – 5, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160127871 (Smith) in view of US 20230087450 (YERRAMALLI).
Regarding claim 3, Smith teaches “wherein the location of the first device is in a first area (implicit: the location of the first device is always going to be in some kind of area)…”
Smith does not teach that “a shape of the first area is an ellipsoid or an ellipse, two focal points of the first area are head and tail endpoints of a first vector, a length of a major axis of the first area is a distance corresponding to a sum of the second receive-transmit time difference and the first receive-transmit time difference, and the first vector is a sum of the displacement vector of the first device and the displacement vector of the second device.”
YERRAMALLI in FIG 4 and 5 with corresponding description teaches that “the location of the first device is in a first area; and a shape of the first area is an ellipsoid or an ellipse (in FIG 4, the user device 105, corresponding to “the first device” of instant claim, is located at the intersection of ellipses 402 and 404, each of which corresponds to “the first area”. In FIG 5, the user device 105 is located at the border of ellipse 508)…”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to define the area of the location of Smith’s first device as an ellipse, as disclosed by YERRAMALLI, simply as design choice with predictable results since the claim does not require this shape to be used for any purpose.
With respect to specific requirements for the two focal points and the length of a major axis, the claim does not require these values, or the shape itself, to be used for any purpose, nor does it require determination of any of these values as part of the method. Therefore, these requirements are treated simply as arbitrary. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to assign any numerical values to the parameters of the ellipse, including those specified by the claim, simply as design choice with predictable results, the results being specific dimensions and shape of the ellipse.
Additionally or alternatively, the limitations of the claim merely amount to a statement of intended use or environment in which the device is used and thus this recitation does not have to be given patentable weight. “[a]n intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” See Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Elaborating on that, as the MPEP in 2111.02(II) states, during examination, statements reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim.
Now considering the claim, there would be absolutely no difference in the operation of the method of claim 1, as claimed regardless of the particular characteristics of the shape of the area in which the first device is located.
Regarding claim 4, Smith does not teach “further comprising N second devices, where N is an integer greater than 1, each second device corresponds to one second area, and the location of the first device is at an intersection point of the N second areas; and a shape of an ith second area corresponding to an ith second device in the N second devices is an ellipsoid or an ellipse, two focal points of the ith second area are head and tail endpoints of a second vector, a length of a major axis of the ith second area is a distance corresponding to a sum of the second receive-transmit time difference and a first receive-transmit time difference of the ith second device, and the second vector is a sum of the displacement vector of the first device and a displacement vector of the ith second device, wherein i is a positive integer, and i≤N.”
YERRAMALLI in FIG 4 with corresponding description starting with paragraph 0131 teaches determining the position of the user equipment 105 (corresponds to “the first device” of instant claim). YERRAMALLI teaches “wherein when there are N second devices (represented by RP1 113a and RP2 113b), where N is an integer greater than 1 (N=2 in FIG 4), each second device corresponds to one second area (ellipses 402 and 404 corresponding to RP1 113a and RP2 113b, respectively), and the location of the first device is at an intersection point of the N second areas (location of the user device 105 is shown at the intersection of ellipses 402 and 404); and
a shape of an ith second area corresponding to an ith second device in the N second devices is an ellipsoid or an ellipse (ellipses 402 and 404 corresponding to RP1 113a and RP2 113b, respectively)…”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by YERRAMALLI method of using plurality of second devices to determine exact location of the user equipment, in the system of Smith. Doing so would have allowed the UE 105 to generate multiple Rx−Tx time difference measurements thus improving reliability and accuracy of position determination (based on YERRAMALLI, paragraph 0140).
With respect to specific requirements for the two focal points of each “second area” and the length of a major axis, the claim does not require actual determination of any of these values as part of the method. Therefore, these requirements are treated simply as arbitrary. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to assign any numerical values to the parameters of the ellipse, including those specified by the claim, simply as design choice with predictable results, the results being specific dimensions and shape of the ellipse.
Additionally or alternatively, the limitations of the claim merely amount to a statement of intended use or environment in which the device is used and thus this recitation does not have to be given patentable weight. “[a]n intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” See Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Elaborating on that, as the MPEP in 2111.02(II) states, during examination, statements reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim.
Now considering the claim, there would be absolutely no difference in the operation of the method of claim 1, as claimed regardless of the particular characteristics of the shape of each of the “second area”.
Regarding claim 5, Smith does not teach “wherein the location of the first device is determined based on at least one of the first area and an angle of arrival of the first reference signal or the first area and an angle of arrival of the third reference signal.”
YERRAMALLI in FIG 5 and at least in paragraphs 0149 and 0207 teaches determining the position of the user equipment 105 (corresponds to “the first device” of instant claim) based on ellipse 508 (corresponds to “the first area” of instant claim) and angle of arrival θ shown with respect to transmission of the reference signal between the user equipment 105 and RP1 113a (RP1 113a corresponding to “the second device of parent claim 1, and the angle of arrival θ of the reference signal corresponding to “at least one of” “an angle of arrival of the first reference signal or” “and an angle of arrival of the third reference signal”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by YERRAMALLI angle of arrival of the reference signal at one of the communicating devices, in the system of Smith. Doing so would have allowed to more accurately determine position of the device.
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 5 (which includes the limitations of its parent claims 1 and 3) because they have similar limitations.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 4 because they have similar limitations.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160127871 (Smith) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20200267683 (Edge).
Regarding claim 6, Smith does not teach “wherein the first receive-transmit time difference is a value obtained by performing a modulo operation of the difference between the receiving time of the first reference signal and the sending time of the second reference signal mod a first value; and
the second receive-transmit time difference is a value obtained by performing a modulo operation of the receiving time of the third reference signal and the sending time of the fourth reference signal mod the first value.”
In similar art of distance determination, Edge in FIG 4 with corresponding description teaches “the first receive-transmit time difference is a value obtained by performing a modulo operation of the difference between the receiving time of the first reference signal and the sending time of the second reference signal mod a first value (shown in FIG 4 as denoting (T mod 1 ms) as [T], and arriving at [Rx1-Tx0]); and
the second receive-transmit time difference is a value obtained by performing a modulo operation of the receiving time of the third reference signal and the sending time of the fourth reference signal mod the first value (shown in FIG 4 as [Rx0-Tx1]).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Edge usage of modulo operation in determination of the received-transmit time differences, in the system of Smith simply as design choice with predictable results since, according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Additional explanations may be found in section Response to Arguments above which is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160127871 (Smith) in view of US 20220244344 (Bao).
Regarding claim 8, Smith teaches “A positioning method (shown in FIG 31 with corresponding description) comprising…”
“…a second receive-transmit time difference of a first device, wherein the second receive-transmit time difference is a time difference between receiving time of a third reference signal and sending time of a fourth reference signal, the third reference signal is a reference signal of a second device received by the first device, and the fourth reference signal is a reference signal sent by the first device;
receiving a first receive-transmit time difference of the second device and a displacement vector of the second device, wherein the first receive-transmit time difference is a time difference between receiving time of a first reference signal and sending time of a second reference signal, the first reference signal is a reference signal of the first device received by the second device, the second reference signal is a reference signal sent by the second device, and the displacement vector of the second device is a displacement of the second device in a time period corresponding to the first receive-transmit time difference; and
determining a location of the first device based on the first receive-transmit time difference, the displacement vector of the second device, and the second receive-transmit time difference (the limitations above are rejected in view of Smith as explained in the rejection of similar limitations of claim 1 above, the explanations being incorporated herein by reference).
Smith does not teach that all the receiving is performed “by a third device”.
In the disclosure of Smith, there are only two devices cooperating with each other to determine a location of one of the devices. The location of the device is determined by the device itself. So the difference between the disclosure of Smith and instant claim is that in the instant claim the raw data is received by an additional device, while in Smith, there is no additional devices.
In similar art, Bao also discloses location determination – see FIG 6 with corresponding description. Paragraph 0095: the UEs 105 and 106 may be configured to perform sidelink assisted positioning by transmitting and/or receiving SL-PRS and reporting to the location server 120. Paragraphs 0107 – 0108: At stage 11, one or both of the UEs 105 and 106 may transmit SL-PRS. As illustrated in FIG. 6, UE1 105 transmits SL-PRS to UE2 106 and UE2 106 transmits SL-PRS to UE1 105. This corresponds to the “reference signals” of instant claim. At stages 12A and 12B, UE1 105 and UE2 106, respectively measure the received SL-PRS transmitted at stage 11. The measurements may be timing based measurements, such as Rx-Tx, etc. Paragraphs 0109 – 0110: At stage 13, UE1 105 transmits a positioning information report to the location server 120 that includes the positioning measurements obtained in stages 10A and 12A. At stage 14, UE2 106 transmits a positioning information report to the location server 120 that includes the positioning measurements obtained in stages 10B and 12B. Paragraph 0112: at stage 16, the location server 120 determines the locations of UE1 105 and UE2 106 based on the measurement responses received at stages 13, 14 and 15.
In this case, the UE1 105 corresponds to the claimed “a first device”, the UE2 106 corresponds to the claimed “a second device”, and the location server 120 corresponds to the claimed “a third device”, so that the “third device” receives all information specified by the claim from both the first and the second devices and performs location determination.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Bao usage of a location server to receive all raw information (including time differences and displacement information) from the devices determining relative location, in the system of Smith. Doing so would have allowed to determine position of both devices at a centralized place, such as location server.
Additional explanations may be found in section Response to Arguments above which is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160127871 (Smith) in view of US 20220244344 (Bao) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US 20210311203 (Reis).
Regarding claim 9, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 because they have similar limitations.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160127871 (Smith) in view of US 20220244344 (Bao) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of EP 2437549 (Feki).
Regarding claim 10, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 3 in section 17 above because they have similar limitations.
Claims 10 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160127871 (Smith) in view of US 20220244344 (Bao) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US 20230087450 (YERRAMALLI).
Regarding claims 10 – 12, these claims are rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 3 – 5, respectively, in section 18 above because they have similar limitations.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160127871 (Smith) in view of US 20220244344 (Bao) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US 20200267683 (Edge).
Regarding claim 13, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 6 because they have similar limitations.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160127871 (Smith) in view of US 20230087450 (YERRAMALLI) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of US 20200267683 (Edge).
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 6 because they have similar limitations.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
The Examiner would like to suggest adding the limitations of claim 2 into claim 14 which would make claim 14 allowable and resolve antecedent basis deficiency indicated for claim 14 above.
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 GENNADIY TSVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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.
/GENNADIY TSVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights