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 filed 3/26/24 has an ISR for a PCT application which was not considered because the scanned document did not have any information. Applicant is requested to resubmit the search report.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 7-9, 13-15, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge in view of Wiacek (WO 2020/001821).
Regarding claim 1, Edge discloses a method comprising: sending, by a wireless communication device (UE 105) to a wireless communications node (LMF 124) at least one message comprising assistance information for the wireless communications node to perform location verification (para 164) wherein the assistance information comprises time information (para 168, use of AoA, RSTD, DAOA location which all deal with time based measurements). Edge fails to disclose that the assistance information comprises a timing advance (TA) value corresponding to a reference point. However, Wiacek teaches in an analogous art, the use of timing advance values for assistance information in helping perform location verification. In particular note, page 37; 5-20 and pages 39;4-41;20 – the use of TA values are sent to help verify the location of the UE. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use TA values in order to increase the accuracy of the location processing.
Regarding claim 18, Edge discloses a method comprising: receiving, by a wireless communication node (LMF 124) from a wireless communications device (UE 105) at least one message comprising assistance information for the wireless communications node to perform location verification (para 164) wherein the assistance information comprises time information (para 168, use of AoA, RSTD, DAOA location which all deal with time based measurements). Edge fails to disclose that the assistance information comprises a timing advance (TA) value corresponding to a reference point. However, Wiacek teaches in an analogous art, the use of timing advance values for assistance information in helping perform location verification. In particular note, page 37; 5-20 and pages 39;4-41;20 – the use of TA values are sent to help verify the location of the UE. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use TA values in order to increase the accuracy of the location processing.
Regarding claims 19-20, Edge discloses a wireless communication node (Figures 13-15) comprising at least one processor (1304,1404, 1504) and a wireless communication device (Figure 12) with at least one processor (1204) each processor configured to: sending, by a wireless communication device (UE 105) to a wireless communications node (LMF 124) or receive at the wireless communications node from the wireless communication device at least one message comprising assistance information for the wireless communications node to perform location verification (para 164) wherein the assistance information comprises time information (para 168, use of AoA, RSTD, DAOA location which all deal with time based measurements). Edge fails to disclose that the assistance information comprises a timing advance (TA) value corresponding to a reference point. However, Wiacek teaches in an analogous art, the use of timing advance values for assistance information in helping perform location verification. In particular note, page 37; 5-20 and pages 39;4-41;20 – the use of TA values are sent to help verify the location of the UE. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use TA values in order to increase the accuracy of the location processing.
Regarding claims 4, and 6 Edge discloses the method comprising receiving by the wireless communications device from the wireless communication node via at least on signaling, at least one of: a position of a reference point (positioning reference signal para 125) or a trigger to initiate the location verification (LPPR request location information message, para 168). Edge discloses that the signaling comprises RRC signaling (para 123, 129-130).
Regarding claim 7, Edge discloses receiving by the wireless communications device form the wireless communication node, an indication of a plurality of reference points (Figure 18, steps 1802 – multiple measurements are received by the UE), and sending by the wireless communications device to the wireless communication node, the assistance information comprising a plurality of time information (step 1806, sending the measurements including time information to the wireless network). Also see para 155, the location process may be repeated over time as well.
Regarding claims 8-9, Edge further discloses, determining by the wireless communication device, a position of a first satellite according to ephemeris data (para 97 and 110, use of ephemeris data), determining according to the first position, time information corresponding to the position of the first satellite (para 110 and para 52-53, time measurements and ephemeris to determine locations) and sending to the wireless communications node via the first satellite, the assistance information comprising the time information (para 110- location is sent to LMF 124 to validate the time measurement based on the user equipment and ephemeris data). Edge also discloses that this process is performed for a second satellite as well (para 106- the DAOA process requires a pair of satellite vehicles (102,202,302) to perform the location process.
Regarding claim 13, Edge discloses receiving a plurality of reference points (DL PRS signals, para 150) determining a plurality of time information (location measurements based on the PRS signals, para 152) and sending to the node from the wireless device, the plurality of time information at the defined time (Figure 10, step 6, measurements sent which can include multiple measurements as stated in para 113).
Regarding claim 14, Edge discloses receiving by the wireless communication device an indication of a plurality of time instances (par 113- UE can measure over a plurality of times as well as para 150 – receiving multiple PRS signals each denoting a reference) Edge also discloses sending by the wireless device to the wireless node in a periodic manner (para 113 and 155 – repeating measurements periodically which are then sent to the wireless node, Figure 10, step 6).
Regarding claim 15, Edge discloses determining by the wireless communication device, a plurality of time information each corresponding to a plurality of time instances ( para 150 and 152, plural measurements are taken by the UE based on PID and multiple cells to get the RSTD/DAOD measurements, also para 155 and Figure 10, step 9, repeating a plurality of measurements for steps 5-6 at particular times) and sending by the wireless device to the wireless node, the plurality of time information at a defined time (Figure 10, step 6 sending time information to the node).
Claim(s) 2-3, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge and Wiacek as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Yin (WO 2021/213061).
Regarding claims 2-3, the combination of Edge and Wiacek discloses all the particulars of the claim except for the assistance information being a mobility status of the wireless device and the mobility status includes movement direction or speed. However Yin teaches a location verification system in which the wireless device (100) can include mobility information including movement direction or speed (para 100-101, The positioning assistance information may be the positioning accuracy, the positioning delay, the positioning security, the positioning manner, the movement speed, and/or the movement direction). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include movement direction/speed as mobility information to increase the accuracy of the location verification process.
Regarding claim 10, Yin further teaches receiving by the wireless communication device from the wireless communication node, a first indication if the location verification is successful, and sending by the wireless device in response to the first indication, a second time information at a define time, wherein the wireless communication node performs a second location verification using the time information, trajectory information and mobility status (Para 109 - when the terminal device accesses the server for the first time, if the verification on the location information succeeds, the server sends the access token to the terminal device When the terminal device accesses the server next time, if the verification on the location information succeeds therefore, the verification is performed again using the received assistance information comprising the trajectory information and mobility status.)
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge and Wiacek and Yin as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Tao (WO 2020/191646).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Edge, Wiacek, and Yin discloses all the particulars of the claim except for the window for location verification comprises a duration of the window or a start/end time. However, Tao teaches a location measurement in which the duration of the window for location verification is computed (para 45 – use of positioning window and para 51, start/end/duration). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a window duration or start/end time to reduce excess control signaling in the positioning process.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge and Wiacek as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Atsungiri (2022/0060959).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Edge and Wiacek discloses all assigning to the wireless communications device a first flag (country matches location) if the location verification is successful (para 119). Edge doesn’t disclose determining to skip future verification of the wireless communications device for at least one of a define period or duration of connection. However, Atsungiri teaches in an analogous art, a satellite location method in which upon successful location measurement, a future verification is allowed to delayed for a defined period (Figure 7, step 8-10, delaying measurement for a defined period). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a delayed measurement in order to reduce power consumption for the user terminal.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge, Wiacek, and Yin as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Ahn (2015/0223027).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Edge, Wiacek, and Yin disclose sending a second update of assistance information (para 155, sending a repeated location indication). Edge discloses that location verification can be unsuccessful (located in the wrong country). However, the combination does not disclose the second indication if location verification is unsuccessful. However, Ahn teaches a location verification system in which if verification is unsuccessful ( i.e. – coverage map is not accurate or valid – para 165) that an updated assistance information (second indication) is performed (further measurements to update the radio map, para 166-170). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a second verification upon unsuccessful verification in order to have an error processing indication in the system.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge and Wiacek as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lin (WO 2018/093320).
Regarding claims 16-17, the combination of Edge and Wiacek discloses that a plurality of time information is used by the wireless device to send the plurality of time information at those plurality of time instances (para 113 and 155, repeating measurements). Edge doesn’t explicitly disclose a trigger or a prediction responsive to a trigger. However, Lin teaches in an analogous art, the use of triggers (timing offsets with NPRS configuration information, Figure 5, 210) in which wireless communication devices use/predict the plurality of time instants (using offsets to get accurate measurements, Figure 5, 220 and Figure 8, offsets determine, i.e. predict when the user device performs the measurements). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include triggers in order to have accurate control timing to perform the location verification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Johansson (2018/0332474) disclose use of timing advance signaling to perform location verification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 WILLIAM GEORGE TROST IV whose telephone number is (571)272-7872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7a-4p, Fridays 7a-2p.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
WILLIAM GEORGE TROST IV
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2641
/WILLIAM G TROST IV/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights