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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Siomina et al. US Patent No.9,204, 418 B2, hereinafter, ‘Siomina’.
Consider Claims 1 and 15, Siomina teaches a method for identifying position of a node in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: receiving, by at least one first node, information of number of antennas and antenna ports available at least one second node (e.g., this is met by Claim 1 discussion of the identifying a number of ports and antennas); determining, by the at least one first node, at least one antenna group of at least one of the at least one first node and the at least one second node based on the number of antennas and antenna ports configured at the at least one first node and the at least one second node and signaling, by the at least one first node to the at least one second node, at least one of configuration information of at least one reference signal and at least one assistance information(e.g., see at least col. 3 lines 15-25, col. 4 lines 60-65 and col. 5 lines 5-10); receiving, by the at least one second node, the at least one of configuration information of the at least one reference signal (e.g., see at least col. 5 lines 5-25 – see reference signal transmission), the at least one antenna group, and the at least one assistance information transmitted by the at least one first node (col. 2 lines 55-60 and col. 8 lines 10-20); transmitting, by the at least one first node, the at least one reference signal over the at least one antenna group; and receiving, by the at least one second node, the at least one reference signal transmitted by the at least one first node, using the configuration information, wherein the at least one second node estimates at least one positioning parameter for at least one of a first arrival path and additional paths based on the at least one reference signal (e.g., see at least col. 6 lines 20-50 -positioning related measurements).
Consider Claims 2 and 16, Siomina teaches wherein one of the at least one first node and the at least one second node is a user equipment, a base station, and a relay node, in a cellular network (e.g., see architecture illustrated in at least figures 1-3).
Consider Claim 5, Siomina teaches wherein the configuration information includes at least one of reference signal identifier and reference signal resources of at least one antenna group of the at least one first node(e.g., see architecture illustrated in at least figures 1-3).
Consider Claim 6, Siomina teaches wherein the assistance information includes at least one of information about antenna beam, antenna array configuration information, and multiplexing information of the at least one antenna port (e.g., see at least col. 17 lines 29-57 –antenna beam information).
Consider Claim 12, Siomina teaches wherein the at least one estimated positioning parameter is used to estimate position of the at least one second node(e.g., see at least col. 6 lines 20-50 -positioning related measurements).
Consider Claim 13, Siomina teaches the claimed invention further comprising reporting by the at least one second node, one of the at least one estimated positioning parameter and estimated position of the at least one second node based on the at least one positioning parameter, to at least one of a location server or the at least one first node(e.g., see at least col. 6 lines 20-50 -positioning node).
Consider Claim 14, Siomina teaches wherein the at least one positioning parameter comprises time positioning parameters, angle positioning parameters, mobility based parameters, and power based measurements and wherein the time positioning parameters include at least one of Time of Arrival (ToA), time difference of arrival (TDOA), and transmitter-receiver time difference of arrival, the angle positioning parameters include Angle of Arrival from receiver (s-AoA) from the at least second node and Angle of Departure from the at least one first node (f-AoD), the mobility based parameters include Doppler of at least one of the first arrival path and the additional paths and the power based measurements include total path power corresponding to line of sight or non-line of sight paths(e.g., see at least col. 6 lines 20-50 -positioning related measurements.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siomina et al. US Patent No.9,204, 418 B2, hereinafter, ‘Siomina’ in view of Harrison et al. US Patent No.: 10,205,499 B2, hereinafter, ‘Harrison’.
Consider Claim 7, Siomina teaches the claimed invention except wherein the antenna array configuration information includes at least one of the antenna placement geometry, antenna panel information, and antenna geometry parameters.
In analogous art, Harrison teaches wherein the antenna array configuration information includes at least one of the antenna placement geometry, antenna panel information, and antenna geometry parameters (e.g., see at least abstract, figure 1 and col. 6 lines 3-20- see rectangular and non-rectangular array.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the antenna array configuration information includes at least one of the antenna placement geometry, antenna panel information, and antenna geometry parameters for the purpose of improving data rates.
Consider Claim 8, Siomina teaches the claimed invention except wherein the antenna placement geometry is at least one of rectangular array, elliptical array, and cylindrical array.
In analogous art, Harrison teaches wherein the antenna placement geometry is at least one of rectangular array, elliptical array, and cylindrical array (e.g., see at least abstract, figure 1 and col. 6 lines 3-20- see rectangular and non-rectangular array.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the antenna placement geometry is at least one of rectangular array, elliptical array, and cylindrical array for the purpose of improving data rates.
Consider Claim 9, Siomina teaches the claimed invention except wherein the antenna geometry parameters for rectangular array are at least one of vertical and horizontal spacing, number of elements per panel, number of panels in horizontal directions, number of panels in vertical direction, and polarization.
In analogous art, Harrison teaches wherein the antenna geometry parameters for rectangular array are at least one of vertical and horizontal spacing, number of elements per panel, number of panels in horizontal directions, number of panels in vertical direction, and polarization (e.g., see at least col. 3 lines 60-65- “A common approach when designing precoder codebooks tailored for two-dimensional antenna arrays is to combine precoders tailored for a horizontal array and a vertical array respectively”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the antenna geometry parameters for rectangular array are at least one of vertical and horizontal spacing, number of elements per panel, number of panels in horizontal directions, number of panels in vertical direction, and polarization for the purpose of improving data rates.
Consider Claim 10, Siomina teaches the claimed invention except wherein the antenna geometry parameters for elliptical arrays are at least one of the radial distances and number of antenna elements across each radial direction.
In analogous art, Harrison teaches wherein the antenna geometry parameters for elliptical arrays are at least one of the radial distances and number of antenna elements across each radial direction (e.g., see at least figures 7 and 8, col. 11 lines 48-58 – non-rectangular/elliptical).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the antenna geometry parameters for elliptical arrays are at least one of the radial distances and number of antenna elements across each radial direction for the purpose of improving data rates.
Consider Claim 11, Siomina teaches the claimed invention except wherein the antenna geometry parameters for cylindrical arrays are at least one of the radial distances, number layers, and number antenna elements in each layer.
In analogous art, Harrison teaches wherein the antenna geometry parameters for cylindrical arrays are at least one of the radial distances, number layers, and number antenna elements in each layer (see at least figures 7 and 8, col. 11 lines 48-58 – this is met based on non-rectangular)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the antenna geometry parameters for cylindrical arrays are at least one of the radial distances, number layers, and number antenna elements in each layer for the purpose of improving data rates.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record does not specify the formulation noted and claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TERRELL SHEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8621. The examiner can normally be reached 8A-5P.
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, Matthew D Anderson can be reached at 571 272 4177. 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.
/CHARLES T SHEDRICK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights