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 based on an application filed in China on 01/14/2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202010039189.0 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/29/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “wherein before obtaining the first information, the method further comprises at least one of :” There is a space between ‘of’ and ‘:’ that needs removing. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1-7, 9-14, 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 16-17, 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12158535.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows:
18930331 (Instant claims)
US PAT 12158535
1. A positioning method, performed by a network-side device or a server, wherein the method comprises:
obtaining first information from a terminal device; and determining the positioning information of the terminal device based on the first information, wherein the first information is used to determine the positioning information of the terminal device;
the first information comprises line-of-sight (LOS) path indication information; the
LOS path indication information is used to indicate whether a target beam is an LOS path; and
the LOS path indication information comprises LOS quality information, and
the LOS quality information is used to represent reliability or quality of an LOS path determining result of the target beam.
1. A positioning method, performed by a terminal device, wherein the method comprises:
determining first information, wherein the first information comprises line-of-sight (LOS) path indication information;
the first information is used to determine positioning information of the terminal device;
the LOS path indication information is used to indicate whether a target beam is an LOS path; and
the LOS path indication information comprises LOS quality information, and
the LOS quality information is used to represent reliability or quality of an LOS path determining result of the target beam.
1. A positioning method, performed by a network-side device or a server, wherein the method comprises:
obtaining first information from a terminal device; and
determining the positioning information of the terminal device based on the first information,
wherein the first information is used to determine the positioning information of the terminal device;
the first information comprises line-of-sight (LOS) path indication information; the
LOS path indication information is used to indicate whether a target beam is an LOS path; and
the LOS path indication information comprises LOS quality information, and
the LOS quality information is used to represent reliability or quality of an LOS path determining result of the target beam.
20. (Currently Amended) A communication device, wherein the communication device is a network-side device or a server, comprising a processor, a memory, and a computer program stored in the memory and capable of running on the processor, and the computer program, when being executed by the processor, causes the processor to implement steps of:
obtaining first information from a terminal device; and
determining positioning information of the terminal device based on the first information,
wherein the first information comprises line-of-sight (LOS) path indication information;
the first information is used to determine positioning information of the terminal device;
the LOS path indication information is used to indicate whether a target beam is an LOS path; and
the LOS path indication information comprises LOS quality information, and
the LOS quality information is used to represent reliability or quality of an LOS path determining result of the target beam
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first information further comprises at least one of the following: direction information of the target beam, energy change information of the target beam, and beam identification information; wherein the beam identification information is identification information of the target beam.
2. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein the first information further comprises at least one of the following: direction information of the target beam, energy change information of the target beam, and beam identification information; wherein the beam identification information is identification information of the target beam.
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first information further comprises measurement information of a target signal; and the measurement information of the target signal comprises at least one of the following: time information of a round-trip time (RTT), time information of a time of arrival (TOA), time information of a time difference of arrival (TDOA), information about a reference signal time difference (RSTD), and information about reference signal received power (RSRP).
3. (Original) The method according to claim 1, wherein the first information further comprises measurement information of the target signal; and the measurement information of the target signal comprises at least one of the following: time information of a round-trip time (RTT), time information of a time of arrival (TOA), time information of a time difference of arrival (TDOA), information about a reference signal time difference (RSTD), and information about reference signal received power (RSRP).
4. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first information is transmitted in location information or signal measurement information.
6. (Original) The method according to claim 1, wherein the first information is transmitted in location information or signal measurement information.
5. The method according to claim 2, wherein the energy change information of the target beam comprises energy information of N beams, the N beams comprise the target beam, and N is a positive integer.
8. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 2,wherein the energy change information of the target beam comprises energy information of N beams, the N beams comprise the target beam, and N is a positive integer.
6. The method according to claim 5, wherein the N beams comprise the target beam and N–1 spatially adjacent beams of the target beam.
10. (Original) The method according to claim 8, wherein the N beams comprise the target beam and N-1 spatially adjacent beams of the target beam.
7. The method according to claim 1, wherein before obtaining the first information, the method further comprises at least one of : sending measurement configuration information to the terminal device, the measurement configuration information being used to determine the first information by the terminal device; or sending report configuration information to the terminal device, the report configuration information being used to determine the first information by the terminal device.
13. (Currently Amended) The method according to claim 1, wherein, before the determining first information, the method further comprises: obtaining measurement configuration information from a network-side device; and determining the first information based on the measurement configuration information; and/or before the determining first information, the method further comprises: obtaining report configuration information from a network-side device; and the determining first information comprises: determining the first information based on the report configuration information.
9. The method according to claim 2, wherein the identification information of the target beam is identification information of a target signal, and the target signal is transmitted through the target beam.
17. (Currently Amended) The communication device according to claim 16, wherein the first information further comprises at least one of the following: direction information of the target beam, energy change information of the target beam, and beam identification information; wherein the beam identification information is identification information of the target beam; wherein the identification information of the target beam is identification information of a target signal, and the target signal is transmitted through the target beam.
10. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program, and the computer program, when executed by a processor of a network-side device or a server, causes the processor to perform:
obtaining first information from a terminal device; and determining the positioning information of the terminal device based on the first information,
wherein the first information is used to determine the positioning information of the terminal device;
the first information comprises line-of-sight (LOS) path indication information;
the LOS path indication information is used to indicate whether a target beam is an LOS path; and
the LOS path indication information comprises LOS quality information, and
the LOS quality information is used to represent reliability or quality of an LOS path determining result of the target beam.
16. (Currently Amended) A communication device, wherein the communication device is a first device terminal device, comprising a processor, a memory, and a computer program stored in the memory and capable of running on the processor, and the computer program, when being executed by the processor, causes the processor to implement a step of:
determining first information, wherein the first information comprises line-of-sight (LOS) path indication information;
the first information is used to determine positioning information of the terminal device;
the LOS path indication information is used to indicate whether a target beam is an LOS path; and
the LOS path indication information comprises LOS quality information, and
the LOS quality information is used to represent reliability or quality of an LOS path determining result of the target beam
Instant claim 11 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Instant claim 12 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Instant claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Instant claim 14 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Instant claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Instant claim 17 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Instant claim 18 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
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) 1-5, 7-8, 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210266773 hereinafter Lee) in view of Calcev et al. (US 20210239783 hereinafter Calcev).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches A positioning method, performed by a network-side device or a server, wherein the method comprises (title):
obtaining first information from a terminal device (Abstract “A method for reporting, by a terminal, a measurement result for location determination”); and
determining the positioning information of the terminal device based on the first information (0269 “the serving base station transmits the RSTD to a location server. The location server determines the location of the UE using the RSTD.”), wherein the first information is used to determine the positioning information of the terminal device (0269 “the serving base station transmits the RSTD to a location server. The location server determines the location of the UE using the RSTD.”); the first information comprises line-of-sight (LOS) path indication information (Abstract “determining whether a channel characteristic between the terminal and each base station included in a plurality of base stations configured for location determination of the terminal corresponds to a visible ray (line of sight: LoS); calculating a reference signal time difference (RSTD)”);
the LOS path indication information comprises LOS quality information, and the LOS quality information is used to represent reliability or quality of an LOS path determining result (Abstract “determining whether a channel characteristic between the terminal and each base station included in a plurality of base stations configured for location determination of the terminal corresponds to a visible ray (line of sight: LoS); calculating a reference signal time difference (RSTD) by configuring, as a reference cell, one of the base stations, the channel characteristics of which correspond to a visible ray (LoS); and reporting a measurement result including the RSTD.”).
Lee does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor Calcev teaches the LOS path indication information is used to indicate whether a target beam is an LOS path (0188 “a UE may identify whether or which received beam (or ray) is LOS, and performs positioning using LOS beams (or rays) only.; 0098 “To reduce the likelihood for a LOS determination error, the technique may be combined with a successive receive or transmit beamforming as described below.”).
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 Calcev with the teachings of Lee. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Calcev 0188). 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, Calcev merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular LOS techniques. Since both Lee and Calcev disclose similar LOS determination 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 2, Lee teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the first information further comprises at least one of the following:
Lee does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor Calcev teaches direction information of the target beam, energy change information of the target beam, and beam identification information; wherein the beam identification information is identification information of the target beam (0087 “The number of transmissions to the receiver 204, and the number and the directions of polarizations of the receiver 204 may also be pre-established via a known definition of the protocol or standard.” [corresponds to direction information of the target beam]).
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 Calcev with the teachings of Lee. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Calcev 0188). 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, Calcev merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular LOS techniques. Since both Lee and Calcev disclose similar LOS determination 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 3, Lee teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the first information further comprises measurement information of a target signal (0009 “reporting the measurement result including the RSTD.”); and
the measurement information of the target signal comprises at least one of the following: time information of a round-trip time (RTT), time information of a time of arrival (TOA), time information of a time difference of arrival (TDOA), information about a reference signal time difference (RSTD), and information about reference signal received power (RSRP) (0009 “reporting the measurement result including the RSTD.”).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the first information is transmitted in location information or signal measurement information (Title “METHOD AND DEVICE FOR REPORTING MEASUREMENT RESULT FOR LOCATION DETERMINATION IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM”).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches The method according to claim 2,
Lee does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor Calcev teaches wherein the energy change information of the target beam comprises energy information of N beams (0104 “the device performs additional search around the LOS directions if the LOS direction becomes obstructed. In other words, the device performs fast beam forming by initially scanning the LOS directions, then if a suitable beam is not found, the device scans in directions around the LOS direction, where the LOS directions are retrieved from the stored information.”), the N beams comprise the target beam (0213 “For LOS detection, different measurements may be defined. In one example embodiment, the measurement is a difference or ratio of the RSRP measured on the two PRSs resources or antenna ports at the same receive time.”), and N is a positive integer (0202 “the two PRS is multiplexed in a TDM manner onto the time and frequency resources at the transmitter.”).
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 Calcev with the teachings of Lee. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Calcev 0188). 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, Calcev merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular LOS techniques. Since both Lee and Calcev disclose similar LOS determination 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, Lee teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein before obtaining the first information, the method further comprises at least one of :
sending measurement configuration information to the terminal device, the measurement configuration information being used to determine the first information by the terminal device (fig 12; 0280 “At S1201, a location server 3 transmits a RequestCapabilities message to a UE 4. The RequestCapabilities message indicates the type of capabilities needed for the UE 4 to perform OTDOA”); or
sending report configuration information to the terminal device, the report configuration information being used to determine the first information by the terminal device.
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches The method according to claim 7, wherein the measurement configuration information comprises request information for requesting the terminal device to measure the LOS path of the target beam.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, Lee teaches The storage medium according to claim 10, wherein the computer program further causes the processor to perform:
before determining the first information, obtaining measurement configuration information from a network-side device (0306 “Referring to FIG. 14, the UE 4 calculates LoS-likelihood before performing the existing OTDOA process (S1410). The UE 4 may identify whether a channel characteristic between the UE and each base station is the LoS or the NLoS based on the LoS-likelihood. The UE 4 may calculate an RSTD based on a result of the identification (S1440).”); and
the determining the first information comprises: determining the first information based on the measurement configuration information (0306 “The UE 4 may calculate an RSTD based on a result of the identification (S1440).”);
and/or
wherein the computer program further causes the processor to perform: before determining the first information, obtaining report configuration information from the network-side device; and the determining the first information comprises: determining the first information based on the report configuration information.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210266773 hereinafter Lee) in view of Calcev et al. (US 20210239783 hereinafter Calcev) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20220345186 hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches The method according to claim 5,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor Zhang teaches wherein the N beams comprise the target beam and N–1 spatially adjacent beams of the target beam (0013 “In an embodiment, each beam vector in the n-th set can be obtained by linear combination of two or more adjacent beam vectors from the (n−1)-th set of beam vectors.”).
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 Zhang with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the signal strength received by the system (Zhang 0002). 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, Zhang merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular beamforming techniques. Since both the cited prior art and Zhang disclose similar beam/network device 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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210266773 hereinafter Lee) in view of Calcev et al. (US 20210239783 hereinafter Calcev) as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Grossmann et al. (CN 109844558 hereinafter Grossmann).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches The method according to claim 2,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor Grossmann teaches wherein the identification information of the target beam is identification information of a target signal, and the target signal is transmitted through the target beam (p.9 “UE can PRS sequence derived from beam cone of the ID/VCID number”).
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 Grossmann with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Grossmann p.5). 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, Grossmann merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular beamforming techniques. Since both the cited prior art and Grossmann disclose similar beam/network device 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Moscovich et al. (US 9609468 B1) discloses “Disclosed herein are techniques and systems for inter-device bearing estimation. Particularly, sensor fusion techniques are disclosed that combine motion data of a local computing device with beamforming data of the local computing device to determine a line-of-site path between the local computing device and a remote computing device. (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