DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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 1-16 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.
Initially, the following is noted.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (referring to “the danger” of importing claim limitations from the specification). See also Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating how the Federal Circuit “will not at any time” bring in claim limitations from the specification); Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-67 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (following that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims).
The claims fail to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bound of the inventive subject matter. Applicant appears to be attempting to incorporate limitations from the specification into the claims, which as noted above is improper.
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claims 9, the claim lacks any definition of “batch processing” since it lacks any definite limits within the boundaries of the claim. The claim fails to provide any manner in which these claimed language have been processed or what the scope of such encompasses.
Regarding claim 2, and similarly claims 4, 10, 12, the claimed language of “a threshold level of accuracy” also lacks any clarity within the boundaries of the claim as to what the metes and bounds of such encompasses. How and in what manner such “a threshold level of accuracy” determined is also unclear.
Regarding claim 7, and similarly claim 15, what is meant and encompasses “high-quality positioning signals” as claimed is unclear and not readily understood. The term “high” is a relative term and it lacks any clarity within the boundaries of the claim as to what the metes and bounds of such encompasses.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
It is Applicant’s responsibility to draft a clear and concise set of claims defining the metes and bounds of Applicant’s invention. The claims consistently show that they lack a clear definition of Applicant’s invention. Applicant should review all of the outstanding claims in response hereto. All of the claims should be reviewed for issues related to clarity and scope as the errors/issues are not constrained to those listed above.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al (US 2018/0310237) in view of Krasner (US 6,104,338).
Kumar et al
PNG
media_image1.png
498
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
494
352
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
598
410
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Krasner
PNG
media_image4.png
748
456
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, and similarly claim 1, as best understood, Kumar et al disclose in Fig 2-3 and 5 above a server configured to determine a location of a measurement device, the server (i.e. location server 32) (Fig 3 above) comprising:
a memory (i.e. memory 62) (Fig 3 above; [0030]);
a transceiver (i.e. transceiver 66) configured to communicate with the measurement device (Fig 3 above; [0030]); and
a processor (i.e. processor 60) communicatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory (Fig 3 above; [0030]) and configured to:
send, via the transceiver, at least one measurement command (i.e. “The location server 32 sends a request location information message 94 to the mobile device 12.”) (Fig 5 above; [0043]) to the measurement device (i.e. mobile device 12) (Fig 2 above) to cause the measurement device to:
obtain first positioning signal measurements in accordance with measurement times indicated in the at least one measurement command (i.e. “The location server 32 may send the request location information message 94 at any time. The request location information message 94 may include an indication of the type of location information that is desired (e.g., RSTD measurements), a desired accuracy of a location estimate, and a response time at which the mobile device 12 should send the location information to the location server 32.”) (Fig 5 above; [0043]); or
obtain second positioning signal measurements of second positioning signals sent from a subset of positioning signal sources indicated in the at least one measurement command (i.e. Kumar et al teaching encompasses the “or” language as claimed); or
a combination thereof (i.e. Kumar et al teaching encompasses the “or” language as claimed);
receive, via the transceiver, measurement data from the measurement device corresponding to the first positioning signal measurements (i.e. “the mobile device 12 sends the measurement results to the location server 32 in a provide location information message 98.”) (Fig 5 above; [0044]), or the second positioning signal measurements, or a combination thereof (i.e. Kumar et al teaching encompasses the “or” language as claimed); and
determine the location of the measurement device based on the measurement data, wherein, to determine the location of the measurement device, the processor is configured to batch process the measurement data corresponding to multiple ones of the first positioning signal measurements (i.e. broadly reads on “The location server 32 can use the measurement results to determine the location of the mobile device 12, e.g., by applying trilateration techniques to the location information provided in the message 98.”) (Fig 5 above; [0045]), or multiple ones of the second positioning signal measurements, or a combination of at least one of the first positioning signal measurements and at least one of the second positioning signal measurements (i.e. Kumar et al teaching encompasses the “or” language as claimed).
Kumar et al do not explicitly disclose the server stores the measurement data in the memory as claimed. Krasner teaches in the same field of endeavor the server storing the measurement data in the memory (i.e. “The method of FIG. 1C begins in step 41 in which the location receiver determines and stores a plurality of differential GPS corrections for each of a series of points in time and also stores a time stamp for each corresponding plurality of differential GPS corrections. As described above in the system of FIG. 1A, the location server 25 may receive or determine differential GPS corrections from the GPS reference receiver having a known location. In the case where the base station and mobile unit use point-to-point radio communications (and not a widely-dispersed cell based system), the GPS reference receiver typically is co-located with the location server and typically also has the same satellites in view as mobile units which are being tracked by the location server 25. The GPS reference receiver 27 may determine differential GPS corrections in the conventional manner and also provide GPS time indicating the point in time when the GPS signals, from which the differential GPS corrections were determined, were received and provide this set of information for each point in time to the location server which causes this information to be stored in storage 26.”) (Fig 1C above; col 6, lines 16-53). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kumar et al in view of Krasner to incorporate such server storing the measurement data in the memory as taught by Krasner to gain advantage of recording the measurement data of the mobile/measurement device for later use of properly determining/correcting the position(s) of the mobile/measurement device; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claims 2-5, and similarly claims 10-13, Kumar et al in view of Krasner do not explicitly disclose processing and determining the location(s) of the measurement device as claimed. However, in the general conditions of a claim(s) are disclosed in the prior art, preferring and utilizing different approaches for processing and determining the accuracy of the device locations involves only routine skill in the art and would be an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claims 7-8, and similarly claims 15-16, the claims are rejected based on the “or” language as claimed in claims 1 and 9 above (i.e. Kumar et al in view of Krasner teachings encompass the “or” language as claimed).
For applicant's benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected 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 and if overcome the current 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0368297 discloses a method of determining a positioning signal measurement includes: sending, from a user equipment to a network entity, a processing-capability message indicating a processing capability of the user equipment for processing an aggregated positioning reference signal, where the processing-capability message corresponds to one or more assistance-data types; obtaining, at the user equipment, the aggregated positioning reference signal; and processing, at the user equipment, the aggregated positioning reference signal based on assistance data to determine the positioning signal measurement, the assistance data including the one or more assistance-data types.
US 9,986,373 discloses a Long Term Evolution Advanced (LTE-A) location server, user equipment (UE) and evolved Node-B (eNB). Information may be transmitted to the UE from the location server. The transmission may be triggered by the location server or another entity requesting the UE location. The information may permit the UE to receive a discovery reference signal (DRS) from at least one eNB. The information may contain an indication of measurements to be performed using the DRS. The UE may measure Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) or Reference Signal Time Difference (RSTD) of the DRS. The UE may send the measurement information to the location server where the UE location is estimated. The UE location may be based on measurements of the DRS and a positioning reference signal (PRS) from one or more eNBs to obtain the Observed Time Difference of Arrival (OTDOA) or Enhanced Cell ID (ECID).
US 9,554,354 discloses a system and method for acquiring signal received from satellite vehicles (SVs) in a satellite navigation system. In one example, although claimed subject matter is not so limited, information processed in acquiring a signal from a first SV may be used in acquiring a signal from a second SV.
US 6,510,387 discloses a method and apparatus for locating mobile device over a broad coverage area using a wireless communications link that may have large and unknown latency. The apparatus comprises at least one mobile device, a reference network, a position server, a wireless carrier, and a location requester. The mobile device is in communication with the wireless carrier and receives global positioning system (GPS) signals from a plurality of satellites in the GPS satellite constellation. The reference network is coupled to the position server and provides GPS data. The mobile receiver receives GPS signals, performs rudimentary signal processing and transmits the processed signals to the wireless carrier. The wireless carrier passes the signals on to the position server. The position server processes the mobile receiver's GPS data and the reference network ephemeris data to identify the location of the mobile receiver. The location is sent to the location requester.
EP 4,089,443 discloses a wireless location/position computation system, device, and method are directed to multiple aid-data sources each providing location-related aid information, a wireless device configured to communicate with the aid-data sources, and a location computation module either integrated with or external to the wireless device. The wireless device may include a transceiver to communicate wireless, data and other signals. The wireless device may receive a position request to compute a position of the wireless device, and in response, initiate a compute-position session. In the compute-position session, the wireless device sends aid requests to and retrieves the location-related aid information from the aid-data sources and processes the location-related aid information from the aid-data sources to generate integrated location information. The location computation module may compute the position of the wireless device based on the integrated location information and satellite location information received from a satellite.
WO 2017/196510 discloses methods and systems for providing location services for user equipment (UE) devices in a radio access network (RAN) such as a Fifth Generation (5G) RAN. Location services may be supported by separate positioning domains that may include a Device to Device domain, a RAN domain and a core network (CN) domain. The RAN domain may include a location server function (LSF) that may support positioning services autonomously within the RAN or in collaboration with a D2D or CN domain. The CN domain may include a location server (LS) that may support control plane and/or user plane location. The RAN domain may enable high volume and low latency location service whereas the CN domain may enable high accuracy service and services for external clients.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 EST.
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, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights