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 .
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/19/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Axmon et al. (US 20160227462 hereinafter Axmon) in view of Wang et al. (CN 110356435 hereinafter Wang).
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axmon et al. (US 20160227462 hereinafter Axmon) in view of Wang et al. (CN 110356435 hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Axmon teaches, A vehicle detection method, applied in an apparatus (fig 1; Abstract “cell detection is improved in a manner that is particularly suitable for, e.g., high speed train scenarios”):
monitoring, by a processor of the apparatus, Doppler-spread information (0095 “The UE may estimate the Doppler shift . . . or may estimate the shift from the Doppler spread (which requires reflection from multiple angles”) and timing-advance (TA) information of the apparatus (0079 “In RRC Connected state, the UE can also make use of the eNB timing advance commands which reflects the distance from the UE to the cell”); and
determining, by the processor, that the vehicle is entering or leaving (0085 “the UE maintains a state on whether approaching or leaving the serving cell, as illustrated in FIG. 6, and may transition between the states if, for example, either or both of the RSRP trend detector and the Doppler shift detector have indicated that there has been a change”; 0023 “In some embodiments, determining whether the wireless device is moving toward the current serving cell of the wireless device or away from the current serving cell of the wireless device comprises determining . . . or more timing advance commands received from a base station controlling the current serving cell.”; 0054 “In some embodiments, when in high speed mobility, the UE initiates suppression of the transmissions from a serving cell as soon as the UE starts moving away from the site (i.e., the geographical location from which the transmission originates”).
While Axmon discloses serving cells and sites it does not explicitly teach a station, for example a metro station. However, in a related field of endeavor, Wang teaches determining the entering/leaving of a station (p.11 “the vehicle ATO converts the target point distance field of the electronic beacon message field into the station entrance position and the station exit position according to the formula (2); then comparing the current train position with it; if it is located between the station exit position and the entrance position; then judging the train is in the station, otherwise, it is in the interval.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Wang with the teachings of Axmon. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve location monitoring (Wang Abstract). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Wang merely teaches that it is well-known to understand the positioning of a train. Since both Axmon and Wang disclose positioning at high-speed environments, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results, for example a UE optimizing its performance by knowing when a train is entering or leaving a platform.
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior teaches The vehicle detection method of claim 1, wherein the Doppler-spread information comprises a Doppler-spread indicator which indicates a Doppler-spread value (Axmon 0095 “The UE may estimate the Doppler shift . . . or may estimate the shift from the Doppler spread (which requires reflection from multiple angles”).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected substantially under the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected substantially under the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim(s) 3-4, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axmon et al. (US 20160227462 hereinafter Axmon) in view of Wang et al. (CN 110356435 hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 20090224913 hereinafter Wu).
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior teaches The vehicle detection method of claim 2,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Wu teaches wherein the monitoring the Doppler-spread information further comprises: calculating, by the processor, a moving average corresponding to the Doppler-spread indicator in a moving window (0013 “Doppler signal that the microcontroller 110 would store 111 and compare periodically in a moving average decision function 111-112. If the moving average function indicates an increasing/decreasing Doppler signal 113,”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Wu with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce false alarms (Wu 0005). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Wu merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular moving average features. Since both Wu and the cited prior art disclose similar Doppler systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior teaches The vehicle detection method of claim 3, further comprising:
determining, by the processor, that the vehicle is entering the station in response to the moving average (Wu claim 1 “averaging each said plurality of MW Doppler signal stored in said non-volatile memory and generating a moving average with each said received plurality of MW Doppler signal”) being lower than a first threshold, or in response to the moving average is lower than a second threshold and the moving average decreases for a default number of moving windows continuously, wherein the first threshold is lower than the second threshold (Wu claim 1 “comparing the generated plurality of MW Doppler signals to a predetermined signal threshold, wherein if each said plurality of MW Doppler signals is less than the threshold signal storing each said MW Doppler signal in non-volatile memory” [Wu teaches the moving average is lower than a first threshold]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Wu with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce false alarms (Wu 0005). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Wu merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular moving average features. Since both Wu and the cited prior art disclose similar Doppler systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected substantially under the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected substantially under the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim(s) 5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axmon et al. (US 20160227462 hereinafter Axmon) in view of Wang et al. (CN 110356435 hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 20090224913 hereinafter Wu) and further in view of Jiang (US 20240205722).
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior teaches The vehicle detection method of claim 3, further comprising:
determining, by the processor, that the vehicle is leaving the station (Wang p.9 “reaching the platform exit distance”) in response to the moving average (Wu claim 1 “averaging each said plurality of MW Doppler signal stored in said non-volatile memory and generating a moving average with each said received plurality of MW Doppler signal”)
the moving average increases for a default number of moving windows continuously (Wu 0013 “If the moving average function indicates an increasing/decreasing Doppler signal 113, then an alarm 140 is triggered representing an approaching target or receding target”),
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Wu with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce false alarms (Wu 0005). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Wu merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular moving average features. Since both Wu and the cited prior art disclose similar Doppler systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Jiang teaches using at least four thresholds where the third is higher than the fourth for TA (0032 “the RTT between the terminal device with the network-side device is greater than a fourth time threshold; the increase in the TA value estimated by the terminal device compared to the currently used TA value is equal to or greater than a fourth TA threshold; the decrease in the TA value estimated by the terminal device compared to the currently used TA value is equal to or greater than the fourth TA threshold.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Jiang with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system performance (Jiang 0004). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Xu merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular timing advance features. Since both Xu and the cited prior art disclose similar timing advance systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected substantially under the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim(s) 6-7, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axmon et al. (US 20160227462 hereinafter Axmon) in view of Wang et al. (CN 110356435 hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Xu et al. (CN 111615186 hereinafter Xu).
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior teaches The vehicle detection method of claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Xu teaches wherein the TA information comprises at least one TA indicator which indicates a TA slope and a TA standard deviation (p.69 “according to the TA deviation of the edge point of the beam cell, obtaining the first slope of the TA deviation linear change, or obtaining the second slope of the linear change of the transmission delay TA deviation according to the transmission time delay TA deviation”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Xu with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system performance (Xu Abstract). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Xu merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular timing advance features. Since both Xu and the cited prior art disclose similar timing advance systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior teaches The vehicle detection method of claim 6, wherein the monitoring the TA information further comprises:
obtaining, by the processor, TA configurations from the network node for a period of time (Xu Abstract “the terminal receives the timing advance TA update value transmitted by the base station and the beam cell number of the beam cell where the terminal is located”); and
calculating, by the processor, the TA slope and the TA standard deviation according to TA values indicated by the TA configurations (Xu p.69 “according to the TA deviation of the edge point of the beam cell, obtaining the first slope of the TA deviation linear change, or obtaining the second slope of the linear change of the transmission delay TA deviation according to the transmission time delay TA deviation”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Xu with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system performance (Xu Abstract). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Xu merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular timing advance features. Since both Xu and the cited prior art disclose similar timing advance systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected substantially under the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected substantially under the same reasons as claim 7.
Claim(s) 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axmon et al. (US 20160227462 hereinafter Axmon) in view of Wang et al. (CN 110356435 hereinafter Wang), and further in view of Xu et al. (CN 111615186 hereinafter Xu) as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Hong et al. (US 20140148187 hereinafter Hong).
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior teaches The vehicle detection method of claim 7, further comprising: performing, by the processor,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Hong teaches an averaging calculation on some of the TA values within a default time (0034 “the timing advance value may be chosen based on an average of timing advance values of neighboring devices”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Hong with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system resources (Hong 0003). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Hong merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular timing advance features. Since both Hong and the cited prior art disclose similar timing advance systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected substantially under the same reasons as claim 8.
Claim(s) 9-10, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axmon et al. (US 20160227462 hereinafter Axmon) in view of Wang et al. (CN 110356435 hereinafter Wang), and further in view of Xu et al. (CN 111615186 hereinafter Xu) as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Liberg et al. (US 20220124659 hereinafter Liberg).
Regarding claim 9, the cited prior teaches The vehicle detection method of claim 7, further comprising: determining, by the processor, that the vehicle is entering the station (Axmon 0085 “the UE maintains a state on whether approaching or leaving the serving cell, as illustrated in FIG. 6, and may transition between the states if, for example, either or both of the RSRP trend detector and the Doppler shift detector have indicated that there has been a change”; 0023 “In some embodiments, determining whether the wireless device is moving toward the current serving cell of the wireless device or away from the current serving cell of the wireless device comprises determining . . . or more timing advance commands received from a base station controlling the current serving cell.”; 0054 “In some embodiments, when in high speed mobility, the UE initiates suppression of the transmissions from a serving cell as soon as the UE starts moving away from the site (i.e., the geographical location from which the transmission originates”)
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Liberg teaches a variance of the TA slope having continuously been lower than a threshold for a default number of moving windows, or in response to the TA standard deviation having continuously been lower than another threshold for a default number of moving windows (0015 “determining whether the TA(T.sub.0) value is valid at the time T.sub.1 based on the mean, standard deviation, or variance of the dTDOA.sub.X(T.sub.1) values comprises determining whether the mean, standard deviation, or variance of the dTDOA.sub.X(T.sub.1) values is less than a predefined or configured threshold. In some embodiments, determining whether the TA(T.sub.0) value is valid at the time T.sub.1 based on the mean, standard deviation, or variance of the dTDOA.sub.X(T.sub.1) values further comprises determining that the TA(T.sub.0) value is valid at the time T.sub.1 if the mean, standard deviation, or variance of the dTDOA.sub.X(T.sub.1) values is less than the predefined or configured threshold”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Liberg with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Liberg 0073). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Liberg merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular timing advance features. Since both Liberg and the cited prior art disclose similar timing advance systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, the cited prior teaches The vehicle detection method of claim 7, further comprising:
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Liberg teaches determining, by the processor, that the vehicle is leaving the station in response to a variance of the TA slope having continuously been higher than a threshold for a default number of moving windows (0014 “In some embodiments, determining whether the TA(T.sub.0) value is valid at the time T.sub.1 based on the maximum value further comprises determining that the TA(T.sub.0) value is not valid at the time T.sub.1 if the maximum value is greater than a predefined or configured threshold.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Liberg with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Liberg 0073). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Liberg merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular timing advance features. Since both Liberg and the cited prior art disclose similar timing advance systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 9 and is therefore rejected substantially under the same reasons as claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 10 and is therefore rejected substantially under the same reasons as claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
RATASUK et al. (US 20200107283) discloses “The apparatus may further determine whether at least one current timing advance value is valid. The apparatus may further, upon determining that the at least one current timing advance value is not valid, performing at least one timing advance update procedure. At least one timing advance update procedure is performed when at least one estimated timing advance shift is within at least one threshold. (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached on (571) 270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights