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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-096573, filed on 06/12/2023.
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.
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) 1, 5-7, 9-10, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (KR 20210115613 A) to Lee et al. in view of (JP2020013539A) Isomura et al.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over to (KR 20210115613 A) Lee et al. in view of Isomura et al and in further view of (US 2017/0123382 A1) Ruzicka et al.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 8, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over to Lee et al. in view of Isomura et al, further in view of (US 2017/0123382 A1) Ruzicka et al.
Regarding Claim 1
Lee teaches a network node (GMLC) that forms a wireless communication network, the network node comprising:
a processor configured to:
receive an inquiry request for location information of a user terminal (UE); (See Abstract and fig 3-4 and 9 and 2 section , which teach GMLC receiving a request for the location of UE ) and
transmit a response including the location information of the user terminal in response to the inquiry request, (see Abstract and fig 3-4 and 9 and 2 section, which teach GMLC transmitting a response to the request for the location of UE.)
Regarding the last feature of claim 1, which recites “wherein the location information included in the response is expressed by a bit string based on a space-filling curve.” As Lee doesn’t teach this features Isomura is added.
In an analogous art, Isomura teaches a system which determines the location of the device. As describe in (Abstract, section24 “ converts and divides the space time information into a one-dimensional bit string, stores at least a leading bit string of the converted one-dimensional bit string”) and (Page: 11, FIG. 7, storage unit processing flow showing conversion of time “In this case, the first conversion unit 242 converts the time “1483196400”, the longitude “40.7212905884”, and the latitude “−73.8441925049” into a one-dimensional bit string (eg, 96 bits) using a three-dimensional Z curve. The obtained one-dimensional bit string is “101010101101111001010110100110111010110010100010001000100011101001110111000100110011001000011011”). i.e. The Isomura teaches that the location of the device is represented as the bit string of a space filling device.
Therefore, As both Lee and Isomura teach location determination and as Isomura explicates teaches using the Space Filling Curve (SFC) bit sting to represent the location, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s 5G location service network node to encode UE location information using space filling curve bit string as taught by Isomura because Isomura and Lee are in the same field of managing position information of mobile devices (UEs/IoT terminals) in wireless communication systems (Isomura mentions identifying data transmission devices include “vehicles, drones, or smartphones” communicating via “4G or 5G” wireless network).
Regarding Claim 10 and 13
Lee and Isomura disclose all the limitation of independent system claim (Claim 10) and the independent method claim (Claim 13) for the same reason stated above with respect to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, Lee discloses the complete system including the network node (AMF/LMF) and clients (LCS client, UE, GMLC) (FIG. 9; FIG. 12), and disclose the method steps of receiving a location inquiry request and transmitting a location response (Claim 1; Abstract). Isomura teaches the additional limitation that the location information included in the response is expressed by a bit string based on space filling curve, for the reason stated above.
Regarding Claim 13, Lee discloses the method of receiving an inquiry request for location information of UE and transmitting a response including the location information by network node in a wireless communication system (Claim 1; Abstract), and Isomura supplies the Space-filling curve bit-string encoding limitation for the same reason stated for Claim 1.
The proposed combination and the motivation for combining the references presented in the rejection of Claim 1 apply to these claims and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 14
Lee in view of Isomura disclose all limitations of Claim 13 for the reason stated above.
Lee and Isomura each further discloses non-transitory storage medium storing instructions that are executable by one or more processors in a computer and that cause the one or more processors to perform the information processing. Specifically, Isomura discloses at (Page: 27, (“program section”): “a program module 1093 for executing the same processing as the functional configuration of the spatiotemporal information management device 20 is stored in the hard disk drive 1090”) i.e., a non-transitory storage medium storing processor-executable instructions that cause the processors to perform the relevant information processing method.
The proposed combination and the motivation for combining the references presented in the rejection of Claim 13 apply to these claims and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 5
Lee in view of Isomura disclose all limitations of Claim 1.
In addition to the findings for Claim 1 above, Lee further teaches that the processor is configured to: acquire location information from the user terminal; through UE-based or UE- assisted positioning procedures using the LTE Positing Protocol (LPP) over RCC. (see Page: 17 ,FIG. 9, step 908, “UE positioning (UE positioning), for example, LPP over RRC (LPP over RRC) is determined”; Page: 19, FIG. 10, step 1007-1008, the LMC determines the positioning procedure and performs the positioning procedure with the terminal 1021; and Page: 8, FIG.3, which describes a “UE-based positioning method or a UE assisted positioning.”
However, Lee does not disclose on storing the location information of the user terminal in a bit string format based on a space-filling curve.
Isomura discloses storing the position information (longitude and latitude) of mobile devices in a one-dimensional bit string format based on a space filling curve in storage unit 24. see Page: 12, FIG.7; FIG. 8 (storage unit processing flow): Storage unit 24 converts position information into Z- curve bit string and stores front bit string as key in storage destination node (“The key setting unit 246 sets the key of the node W1 to store the front bit string “101010101101111001010110100110111010110010100”. Then, the value setting unit 247 sets the storage of the backward bit string.” )
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 6
Lee in view of Isomura disclose all limitations of Claim 5.
Lee further discloses that the inquiry request includes a request for confirmation as to whether the user terminal is located in a predetermined area, and the response includes information as to whether the user terminal is located in the predetermined area. (See Page: 16, FIG. 9 step 902, “the AMF 924 checks whether the terminal 921 is included in an area where a high-precision location service is provided at the location, and if the location is an area where high-precision location.” i.e., this describes confirming whether the user terminal is in a pre-determined area as part of location service procedure. Lee further discloses at Page:16, FIG. 9 step 903: “If the accuracy of the location information request is sufficient with cell-based accuracy, if there is valid location information of the terminal 921, it responds with the current location of the terminal 921.”) i.e. the location information requests may therefore include an implicit area confirmation component, and the response includes information regarding whether the terminal is in the area.
However, Lee does not explicitly disclose confirming whether the UE is located in the predetermined area by comparing a bit string based on a space-filling curve representing the predetermined area with the stored bit string.
Isomura discloses the last limitation of Claim 6 which recites; the processor is configured to confirm whether the user terminal is located in the predetermined area by comparing a bit string based on a space-filling curve representing the predetermined area with the stored bit string based on a space-filling curve. See Page: 6, FIG. 1: “The search unit 25 converts the range condition of the spatial-temporal information to be searched into a one-dimensional bit string… the search unit 25 searches the search destination node for a key using the divided front bits… searches the value of the searched key for a value corresponding to the divided rear bit string, and includes the value in the searched value.”) i.e., Determining whether a stored location (SFC bit string) falls within a query range (predetermined area expressed as an SFC bit string range) and confirming area by SFC bit string comparison.
Isomura further teaches at Page: 10: “The rear bit string search unit 257 searches the value of the key searched by the key search unit 256 for a value that matches the front of the rear bit string divided by the second division unit” and at Page: 17: “A prefix match search is performed by the secondary index part of the searched key, and the stored data is searched” i.e., this “prefix matching” of bit string is the SFC-based area determination recited in Claim 6.
The combination of Lee (wireless location service with area-based events) and Isomura (area confirmation by SFC bit string comparison) renders claim 6 obvious. The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 7
Lee in view of Isomura disclose all limitations of Claim 6.
Claim 7 recites; the predetermined area is expressed as a bit string based on a space-filling curve in the inquiry request, and whether the user terminal is located in the predetermined area is confirmed by comparing a bit string included in the inquiry request with the stored bit string. See Isomura’s Page: 16, Page: 17, FIG.14 “The range condition of the spatial-temporal information to be searched into a one-dimensional bit string, divides the converted one-dimensional bit string” i.e., the search request (inquiry) includes the spatiotemporal range condition expressed as a one-dimensional bit string based on a Z-curve. And (Page: 12, Page: 13, [Processing Flow of Searching Unit]: “shows the search request data including the range of time, longitude, and latitude, which is then converted to an space-filling curve bit string by the second conversion unit 252 and to search the stored bit strings” i.e., the inquiry request including an area expressed as an space-filling curve bit strings, and the confirmation being made by the comparing that bit string with stored bit strings as recited Claim 7.
Ruzicka further adds by disclosing at (PARA [0093]-[0104] that sets of Hilbert numbers representing areas are compared to determine membership. See PARA [0100]: “Range filter 1306 is configured to parse the ranges listed in sorted superset 1304 to find any cell identifiers that occur in more than one range. For any cell identifiers occurring in more than one range (associated with different time zones)” i.e., SFC bit-string ranges representing predetermined area are compared against stored SFC bit strings to confirm area, as recited in Claim 7.
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 9
Lee in view of Isomura disclose all limitations of Claim 6.
Lee discloses the predetermined area is expressed in a latitude/longitude format or a Geographical Area Description (GAD) format in the inquiry request. See Page: 20, Step 1009, item (2): “Location information according to the geographic area identifier (GAD) of the terminal…information expressing the position of the Earth's ellipsoid surface in terms of longitude and latitude.” The LMF in Lee (see Page: 8, FIG. 3) “determines a position determination result on geographic co-ordinates described in technical document TS 23.032, which is a 3GPP standard” and TS 23.032 is the 3GPP standard defining the GAD format, i.e., the location request that include area parameters expressed in GAD format per 3GPP TS 23.032, as well as latitude/longitude coordinates representations.
However, Lee does not disclose the processor converting a predetermined area expressed in latitude/longitude or GAD format into a bit string based on a space-filling cure.
Therefore, Isomura added and it discloses the processor is configured to convert a predetermined area included in the inquiry request into a bit string based on a space-filling curve. See Page:23 [Processing Flow of Storage Unit]: “converts the time “1483196400”, the longitude “40.7212905884”, and the latitude “−73.8441925049” into a one-dimensional bit string (eg, 96 bits) using a three-dimensional Z curve.” And see Page:24 “converts the input range of the time…the longitude…and the latitude…into a one-dimensional bit string using a three-dimensional Z curve." i.e., Isomura’s conversion unit 242 receives position information as longitude and latitude in coordinates values and then second conversion unit 252 converts the range condition (inquiry request) into one dimensional bit string using the Z-curve; which is directly disclosing the conversion of a latitude/longitude area format into an space filling curve bit string as recited in Claim 9.
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over to (KR 20210115613 A) Lee et al. in view of (US 2017/0123382 A1) Ruzicka et al.
Regarding Claim 3
Lee in view of Ruzicka discloses all the limitation of Claim 1.
However, Ruzicka further discloses that the location information included in the response represents an area and has the number of bits depending on size of the area. (see PARA [0061] FIG. 6; “A higher value for index level n means more grid cells 606, which equates to a larger time zone index file being generated.”) i.e., the more bits used to express the location, the smaller (more precise) the area represented, and conversely, the fewer bits, the larger the area which is similar as the number of bits depending on the size of the area. Table 1 of Ruzicka confirms this numerically: at index level 12, each cell represents a 9.78 km resolution area; at the index level 16, each cell represents a 0.61 km resolution area.
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 8, 11 & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over to Lee et al. in view of Isomura et al, further in view of (US 2017/0123382 A1) Ruzicka et al.
Regarding Claim 2
Lee in view of Isomura disclose all limitations of Claim 1.
Claim 2 recites; the location information included in the response is expressed by a bit string based on a Hilbert curve or a Z-order curve. Lee in view of Isomura further disclose that the location information included in the response is expressed by Z-order curve but fails to disclose a Hilbert curve as an alternative to the Z-order curve.
Therefore, Ruzicka is added and it discloses that the space filling curve used to encode location information may specially be a Hilbert curve and provides a complete algorithmic implementation. See Abstract: “The indication of the current location may be converted to an index value according to a Hilbert curve (or other space-filling curve)”; PARA [0086]: “SFC number generator 1002 is configured to generate a Hilbert number… as a cell identifier for each cell”; PARA [0087]-[0091], providing a complete C-code Hilbert number generation algorithm; and PARA [0170]: “generating a cell identifier for each cell in the set of un-discarded cells based on a Hilbert curve.”
Both Isomura and Ruzicka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of encoding geographic location information using space filling curve for efficient spatial indexing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a Hilbert curve for the Z-order curve of Isomura in the combination with Lee because both Hilbert curves and Z-order curves are well known, art-recognized examples of the space-filling curves serving the same purpose of encoding geographic location and Ruzicka explicitly identifies at PARA [0085]-[0086] both as applicable options for location encoding. The selection of either would yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 11
Lee in view of Isomura and further in view of Ruzicka discloses all limitations of Claim 10 for the same reasons stated with respect to Claim 2.
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 4
Lee in view of Isomura discloses all limitations of Claim 1.
Isomura further discloses the location information included in the response is expressed by a bit string in which a first bit string specifying a first direction and a second bit string specifying a second direction are arranged alternately. Isomura discloses using a three-dimensional Z-curve to convert longitude (First direction) and latitude (second direction) coordinate values into one dimensional bit string, wherein the Z-curve encoding inherently interleaves the bits representing the longitude direction and the bits representing the latitude direction in an alternating fashion. See Page: 11, FIG. 7: “In this case, the first conversion unit 242 converts the time “1483196400”, the longitude “40.7212905884”, and the latitude “−73.8441925049” into a one-dimensional bit string (eg, 96 bits) using a three-dimensional Z curve.” i.e., the Z-curve is a well-known space-filling curve that by definition interleaves bits of each coordinate dimension alternately.
However, Isomura does not provide an explicit description of the alternating arrangement as “first bit string specifying a first direction and a second bit string specifying a second direction are arranged alternately”
Therefore, Ruzicka is added and it discloses this alternating bit arrangement, disclosing that coordinate information is converted using equations that separately express the x(longitude) direction and y(latitude) direction, and the resulting Hilbert /SFC number processes these two orthogonal direction components in an interleaved alternating bit pattern. See PARA [0109]-[0118], Equation 2-3 (converting longitude to x-coordinated and latitude to y-coordinate); PARA [0088] (providing the SFC algorithm operating on x and y coordinate inputs); FIG. 16, (illustrating the grid cell formed between pairs of horizontal and vertical grid lines representing the two orthogonal directions).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 8
Lee in view of Isomura discloses all limitations of Claim 7.
Claim 8 recites that the predetermined area is n area that combines a plurality of rectangles, and the inquiry request includes a bit string expressing each of the rectangles based on a space-filling curve.
Isomura discloses that a spatiotemporal range condition for a search query is converted into a one-dimensional bit string using the Z-curve, resulting in a bit string representation corresponding to a rectangular area in the geographic space (Page: 7, FIG. 4, List L3: showing the search comprising start and end values for time, longitude, and latitude defining a rectangular area; (Page: 10) on second conversion unit 252 and second division unit 253).
However, Isomura does not explicitly describes representing a composite area as a combination of a plurality of rectangles each having its own SFC bit string within the inquiry request itself.
Ruzicka explicitly discloses representing an arbitrary geographic area as a combination of plurality of rectangular cells, with each rectangle assigned its own individual cell identifier based on a space-filling curve. See PARA [0075]-[0083]; FIG. 7, step 706, “generated for each cell in the set of un-discarded cells based on a space-filling curve, thereby generating a set of cell identifiers for the polygon.” See FIG. 9: showing a grid of rectangular cells 906, 908, 910 conversing a geographic polygon; See PARA [0093]: showing that cell identifier for a time zone is expressed as a set of ranges representing multiple rectangular areas.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Ruzicka’s teaching of rectangular area decomposition with per-rectangle SFC bit string to the area queries of the lee and Isomura combination because this represents a known technique for expressing arbitrarily shaped geographic areas as collection of rectangular SFC-encoded cells, enabling efficient rea membership determination, and Ruzicka expressly teaches this technique as an improvement to the efficiency of spatial queries (Ruzicka PARA [0085]). The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 12
Lee in view of Isomura discloses all limitation of claim 10.
Claim 12 recites that the client is configured to determine whether the user terminal is located in a predetermined area by comparing a bit string based on a space-filling curve included in the response with a bit string that expresses the predetermined area based on a space-filling curve. Lee discloses the client receiving location information responses from the network node. See FIG. 9, step 911c-1 and 911c-2: “The AMF 924 transmits a location information response (Location Provide Positioning Info response) message to the GMLC (925)”, and “ the GMLC (925) transmits an LCS service response (LCS service response) message to the LCS client (927).” i.e., the client receives a response including the location information from the network node.
However, Lee does not disclose the client determining area by comparing SFC bit string. Isomura discloses client-side area determination by SFC bit-string comparison. The terminal device 40 (client) submits an area range condition, and the system confirms whether stored location data falls within that range by SFC bit-string prefix matching. See Page: 17: “a prefix match search is performed by the secondary index part of the searched key, and the stored data is searched.” i.e., the client-side search process compress the SFC bit string received in the response against the SFC bit string representing the predetermined area, directly corresponding to the claimed client-side area determination by SFC bit-string comparison.
Ruzicka further supports this limitation at PARA [0053] and [0124]-[0131]. PARA [0124] discloses that “time zone determiner 114 may be configured to trigger time zone determinations when the user device moves to an edge of a time zone,” and threshold region determiner 1092 (PARA [0127]-[0131]) determines whether the device is still within a region by comparing its current SFC index value to the region’s boundary which is client-side area determination by SFC comparison, as recited in claim12. The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIKSHYA KANDEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0959. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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, Akwasi M Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/D.K/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/AKWASI M SARPONG/SPE, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights