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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/15/24, 12/8/25, 1/23/26 have been entered and considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 recites “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to is further configured to”. The underlined shows a repetitive statement. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the wireless mobile device comprise a user equipment…” It appears the underlined “comprise” should be “comprises”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations (see claim 20) in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 12-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schubert et al. (US 2022/0119001, hereinafter Schubert) in view of Venkatraman et al. (US 2018/0270783, hereinafter Venkatraman).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 20. Schubert teaches a mobile device and method of coordinating a frame of reference between wireless devices (figure 5), comprising:
at least one transceiver (par. 30, transceivers);
at least one memory (par. 32, memory); and
at least one processor communicatively coupled with the at least one transceiver and at least one memory (par. 32, processor), the at least one processor configured to:
determining, at a wireless mobile device (figure 1, 105, the vehicle is the wireless mobile device, see 100), a location of the wireless mobile device with respect to a local coordinate system of the wireless mobile device (par. 49, assumed location of the vehicle 105, e.g. GPS location from the navigation system 155, thus a location is determined at the wireless device with respect to a local coordinate system of the wireless device),
receiving, at the wireless mobile device from a first wireless reference device (figure 1 item 150, roadside device), an indication of a location of the wireless mobile device with respect to a common reference direction (par. 46-47, The roadside device 150 has a fixed, i.e., non moving or stationary, location that is an absolute location of the roadside device 150 defined with respect to earth's fixed coordinate system, i.e., geo-coordinates specifying a latitude and a longitude. The roadside device 150 can store data specifying its fixed location, i.e., geo-coordinates (latitude and longitude coordinates). As discussed in greater detail below, the vehicle 105 can determine a location correction adjustment using the fixed location of the roadside device 150. The vehicle may establish a link with the roadside device when it is within range (i.e. located close to the device). The vehicle can use the location information from the roadside device, i.e. the fixed location of the device that is within range of the vehicle. Par. 49 explains the vehicle uses a determined location of the vehicle based on the fixed location of the roadside device. Thus, this information reads on an indication of a location of the wireless mobile device with respect to a common reference direction. Par. 50 then explains the connection with the roadside device and the vehicle receiving the signals from the roadside device and determine the location relative to the roadside device…thus the vehicle receives an indication of a location of the vehicle with respect to a common reference direction…i.e. relative to the roadside device. Further, Schubert specifically explains in par. 51 the measurements with the roadside device can be relative to geographic cardinal directions, e.g. a vehicle heading relative to true north.); and
adjusting, at the wireless mobile device, an estimated alignment of the common reference direction with respect to the local coordinate system of the wireless mobile device (par. 61, At block 555, a determination is made whether to alter a vehicle path (i.e. direction) based on the location correction adjustment. The computer 110 may determine that a current vehicle path should be altered based on the location correction adjustment applied to the vehicle 105 navigation system 155. For example, if the location correction is greater than a predetermined threshold, the computer 110 can determine that the vehicle path should be altered. If the vehicle path should be altered, one or more vehicle actuators are actuated to alter the vehicle path at block 560), wherein the adjusting is based at least in part on correction information determined from a comparison (par. 49, determine location correction adjustment based on fixed location of the roadside device 150, a determined location of the vehicle based on the fixed location, and an assumed location of the vehicle (i.e. GPS)…The location adjustment can be defined as a difference between the assumed location of the vehicle 105 and the determined location of the vehicle 105 based on the fixed location of the roadside device 150, i.e. difference reads on comparison) of:
(i) the location of the wireless mobile device with respect to the local coordinate system of the wireless mobile device with (par. 49, The location adjustment can be defined as a difference between the assumed location of the vehicle 105 (see above as this is the GPS provided location within the vehicle 105)…)
(ii) the location of the wireless mobile device with respect to the common reference direction. (par. 49 The location adjustment can be defined as a difference between…and the determined location of the vehicle based on the fixed location of the roadside device 150)
However, although Schubert teaches determining location and orientation of the vehicle (par. 51-53 explains using orientation as well), he does not specifically disclose determining displacement vector and the displacement vector indicating a set of one or more attributes of displacement from a location of the wireless mobile device at a first time to a location of the wireless mobile device at a second time.
Venkatraman, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method and system for mobile device positioning (abstract). Venkatraman further teaches: determining displacement vector (par. 101, determine a baseline displacement vector); and
the displacement vector indicating a set of one or more attributes of displacement from a location of the wireless mobile device at a first time to a location of the wireless mobile device at a second time. (abstract; first set of wireless signal measurements…at a first time at a first location and second set of wireless signal measurements…at a second time at a second location distinct from the first location. A displacement vector between the first and second locations may be obtained. Further see figure 6. The displacement vector “indicates” the signal measurements between the first and second locations, which reads on “one or more” attributes of displacement.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of (effective) filing to incorporate the displacement vector determination based on first location at a first time and second location at a second time of Venkatraman into the location method and system of Schubert. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for mobile positioning even in challenging signal environments (Venkatraman par. 1).
Regarding claims 3 and 16. Schubert further teaches determining, at the wireless mobile device, the correction information (par. 49, determine location correction adjustment based on fixed location of the roadside device 150, a determined location of the vehicle based on the fixed location, and an assumed location of the vehicle (i.e. GPS)
Regarding claims 4 and 17. Venkatraman further teaches determining the displacement vector of the wireless mobile device with respect to the local coordinate frame of the wireless mobile device comprises:
performing one or more positioning measurements with the wireless mobile device to determine a location estimate of the wireless mobile device at the second time, the one or more positioning measurements based on exchanging radio frequency radio frequency (RF) signals between the wireless mobile device and the first wireless reference device (Venkatraman abstract and figure 6 steps 610 and 620); or
performing one or more inertial-measurement unit (IMU) measurements to determine a displacement estimate of the wireless mobile device at the second time, the displacement vector based at least in part on the displacement estimate. (Examiner notes the use of alternative language for these limitations (“or”), and thus only one of the alternatives needs to be shown to read on the claims) The motivation for combining so would have been to allow for mobile positioning even in challenging signal environments (Venkatraman par. 1).
Regarding claims 5 and 18. Schubert further teaches, wherein the one or more positioning measurements comprise:
an angle of arrival (AOA) measurement (Schubert par. 50),
an angle of departure (AOD) measurement (Schubert par. 50),
a ranging measurement (Schubert par. 50), or
any combination thereof. (Examiner notes the use of alternative language for these limitations (“or”), and thus only one of the alternatives needs to be shown to read on the claims)
Regarding claim 6. The combination further teaches wherein the determination of the correction information further accounts for a change in a location of the first wireless reference device at the first time to a location of the first wireless reference device at the second time. (Schubert teaches in par. 49, determine location correction adjustment based on fixed location of the roadside device 150, a determined location of the vehicle based on the fixed location, and an assumed location of the vehicle (i.e. GPS). Venkatraman teaches the locations determined at a first time and second time. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for mobile positioning even in challenging signal environments, Venkatraman par. 1).
Regarding claim 7. Schubert further teaches, prior to receiving the indication of the displacement vector of the wireless mobile device with respect to the common reference direction, sending, from the wireless mobile device to the first wireless reference device, a request to determine an alignment of the local coordinate system of the wireless mobile device to the common reference direction. (par. 35, the computer 110 (part of vehicle 105) may request and receive location of the vehicle, further see par. 51 which discusses orientation of the vehicle relative to true north)
Regarding claims 8 and 19. The combination further teaches wherein the wireless mobile device, the first wireless reference device, or both, comprise a respective user equipment (UE) of a wireless communication network. (Schubert teaches the device is a vehicle (title), while Venkatraman teaches the device is a UE abstract) (Examiner notes the use of alternative language for these limitations (“or”), and thus only one of the alternatives needs to be shown to read on the claims) The motivation for combining so would have been to allow for mobile positioning even in challenging signal environments, Venkatraman par. 1).
Regarding claim 9. The examiner notes that claim 9 is simply a repetition of the method performed in claim 1, and thus the rejection of claim 1 is repeated here. As Schubert clearly indicates in par. 45, there are more than one roadside device 150, and the example they have given is for illustrative purposes and not restrictive (par. 68). In Schubert, as the vehicle 105 travels, it may communicate with a second roadside device and perform the location correction again. Further, Venkatraman teaches in par. 25 (and throughout the preference) that displacement measurements may be obtained continuously and thus performing the location correction over and over would be obvious to ensure precise location. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found repeating the process to be obvious, to ensure the vehicle is properly located and the orientation of the vehicle is known.
The combination of Schubert and Venkatraman render claim 9 obvious as performing the location correction a second time would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. The following rejection shows how the method is performed, and when performed a “second” time, thus all signals, measurements, etc. can be labeled “second” as in claim 9.
Schubert further teaches determining, at a wireless mobile device (figure 1, 105, the vehicle is the wireless mobile device, see 100), a location of the wireless mobile device with respect to a local coordinate system of the wireless mobile device (par. 49, assumed location of the vehicle 105, e.g. GPS location from the navigation system 155, thus a location is determined at the wireless device with respect to a local coordinate system of the wireless device),
receiving, at the wireless mobile device from a first wireless reference device (figure 1 item 150, roadside device), an indication of a location of the wireless mobile device with respect to a common reference direction (par. 46-47, The roadside device 150 has a fixed, i.e., non moving or stationary, location that is an absolute location of the roadside device 150 defined with respect to earth's fixed coordinate system, i.e., geo-coordinates specifying a latitude and a longitude. The roadside device 150 can store data specifying its fixed location, i.e., geo-coordinates (latitude and longitude coordinates). As discussed in greater detail below, the vehicle 105 can determine a location correction adjustment using the fixed location of the roadside device 150. The vehicle may establish a link with the roadside device when it is within range (i.e. located close to the device). The vehicle can use the location information from the roadside device, i.e. the fixed location of the device that is within range of the vehicle. Par. 49 explains the vehicle uses a determined location of the vehicle based on the fixed location of the roadside device. Thus, this information reads on an indication of a location of the wireless mobile device with respect to a common reference direction. Par. 50 then explains the connection with the roadside device and the vehicle receiving the signals from the roadside device and determine the location relative to the roadside device…thus the vehicle receives an indication of a location of the vehicle with respect to a common reference direction…i.e. relative to the roadside device. Further, Schubert specifically explains in par. 51 the measurements with the roadside device can be relative to geographic cardinal directions, e.g. a vehicle heading relative to true north.); and
adjusting, at the wireless mobile device, an estimated alignment of the common reference direction with respect to the local coordinate system of the wireless mobile device (par. 61, At block 555, a determination is made whether to alter a vehicle path (i.e. direction) based on the location correction adjustment. The computer 110 may determine that a current vehicle path should be altered based on the location correction adjustment applied to the vehicle 105 navigation system 155. For example, if the location correction is greater than a predetermined threshold, the computer 110 can determine that the vehicle path should be altered. If the vehicle path should be altered, one or more vehicle actuators are actuated to alter the vehicle path at block 560), wherein the adjusting is based at least in part on correction information determined from a comparison (par. 49, determine location correction adjustment based on fixed location of the roadside device 150, a determined location of the vehicle based on the fixed location, and an assumed location of the vehicle (i.e. GPS)…The location adjustment can be defined as a difference between the assumed location of the vehicle 105 and the determined location of the vehicle 105 based on the fixed location of the roadside device 150, i.e. difference reads on comparison) of:
(i) the location of the wireless mobile device with respect to the local coordinate system of the wireless mobile device with (par. 49, The location adjustment can be defined as a difference between the assumed location of the vehicle 105 (see above as this is the GPS provided location within the vehicle 105)…)
(ii) the location of the wireless mobile device with respect to the common reference direction. (par. 49 The location adjustment can be defined as a difference between…and the determined location of the vehicle based on the fixed location of the roadside device 150)
However, although Schubert teaches determining location and orientation of the vehicle (par. 51-53 explains using orientation as well), he does not specifically disclose determining displacement vector and the displacement vector indicating a set of one or more attributes of displacement from a location of the wireless mobile device at a first time to a location of the wireless mobile device at a second time.
Venkatraman, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a method and system for mobile device positioning (abstract). Venkatraman further teaches: determining displacement vector (par. 101, determine a baseline displacement vector); and
the displacement vector indicating a set of one or more attributes of displacement from a location of the wireless mobile device at a first time to a location of the wireless mobile device at a second time. (abstract; first set of wireless signal measurements…at a first time at a first location and second set of wireless signal measurements…at a second time at a second location distinct from the first location. A displacement vector between the first and second locations may be obtained. Further see figure 6)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of (effective) filing to incorporate the displacement vector determination based on first location at a first time and second location at a second time of Venkatraman into the location method and system of Schubert. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for mobile positioning even in challenging signal environments (Venkatraman par. 1).
Regarding claim 12. Venkatraman further teaches, wherein the set of one or more attributes of displacement comprises:
a direction of the displacement, (Venkatraman par. 31, a direction indicating a direction of the displacement…)
a function of the direction of the displacement,
a magnitude of the displacement, function of the magnitude of the displacement, or
any combination thereof. (Examiner notes the use of alternative language for these limitations (“or”), and thus only one of the alternatives needs to be shown to read on the claims) The motivation for combining so would have been to allow for mobile positioning even in challenging signal environments, Venkatraman par. 1).
Regarding claim 13. Schubert further teaches, wherein the estimated alignment of the common reference direction with respect to the local coordinate system of the wireless mobile device comprises:
an estimated alignment of true north with respect to the local coordinate system of the wireless mobile (par. 51, orientation of the vehicle relative to cardinal directions, e.g. vehicle heading relative to true north), or
an estimated alignment of one or more coordinate system attributes of a common reference coordinate system with respect to the local coordinate system of the wireless mobile, the one or more coordinate system attributes comprising an origin, an orientation of one or more axes, or both (par. 54, difference between assumed location coordinates (i.e. local coordinate system) and the determined coordinates relative to the fixed location). (Examiner notes the use of alternative language for these limitations (“or”), and thus only one of the alternatives needs to be shown to read on the claims).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 10, 11, and 15 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be seen on the attached 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Thier whose telephone number is (571) 272-2832. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM, Fri 7:00 AM-10:00 AM.
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.
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.
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Michael Thier
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights