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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final, first office action in response to the communication filed 12/27/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Benefit is given to the priority document PCT/CN2022/102877 and the effective filing date of 06/30/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/13/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 7-10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Below, supporting analysis follows the Subject Matter Eligibility Test described in MPEP § 2106.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Independent claims 7 and 17 are directed towards a method and an apparatus, respectively. Therefore, each of the independent claims 7 and 17, and the corresponding dependent claims 8-10 and 18-20 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 1
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Regarding Prong 1, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 7 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below):
A method comprising:
receiving feedback from a device, the feedback including:
a position estimate; and
a position estimation mean squared error (MSE) associated with the position estimate;
adding, to a database of entries referencing a plurality of devices, an entry associated with the device; and
characterizing, in the database, the device as located in a given tier, the characterizing based on the position estimation MSE being greater than a first threshold associated with the given tier.
Independent claim 17 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below):
An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, coupled to the at least one processor, storing programming for execution by the at least one processor, the programming including instructions to cause the apparatus to:
receive feedback from a device, the feedback including:
a position estimate; and
a position estimation mean squared error (MSE) associated with the position estimate;
add, to a database of entries referencing a plurality of devices, an entry associated with the device; and
characterize, in the database, the device as located in a given tier, the characterizing based on the position estimation MSE being greater than a first threshold associated with the given tier.
These limitations, as drafted, are a system that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mathematical calculation. For example, characterization using a threshold according to the limitation “the characterizing based on the position estimation MSE being greater than a first threshold associated with the given tier” is a mathematical operation. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 2
If the claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A, Prong 2. In Step 2A, Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Regarding Prong 2, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in MPEP § 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activity, or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In claim 7, the additional elements beyond the above-noted idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method comprising:
receiving feedback from a device, the feedback including:
a position estimate; and
a position estimation mean squared error (MSE) associated with the position estimate;
adding, to a database of entries referencing a plurality of devices, an entry associated with the device; and
characterizing, in the database, the device as located in a given tier, the characterizing based on the position estimation MSE being greater than a first threshold associated with the given tier.
In claim 17, the additional elements beyond the above-noted idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, coupled to the at least one processor, storing programming for execution by the at least one processor, the programming including instructions to cause the apparatus to:
receive feedback from a device, the feedback including:
a position estimate; and
a position estimation mean squared error (MSE) associated with the position estimate;
add, to a database of entries referencing a plurality of devices, an entry associated with the device; and
characterize, in the database, the device as located in a given tier, the characterizing based on the position estimation MSE being greater than a first threshold associated with the given tier.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional elements of claim 7, “receiving feedback from a device,” and “adding, to a database of entries referencing a plurality of devices, an entry” amount to extra-solution activity.
Regarding the additional elements of claim 17, “at least one processor,” and “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium” are merely generic components which allow the abstract idea to be applied (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)). The examiner submits that these elements are mere computers or other machinery used as a tool to perform the existing process. In addition, “receive feedback from a device,” and “add, to a database of entries referencing a plurality of devices, an entry” amount to extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2B
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong 2, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether it provides an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the additional elements of “at least one processor,” “at least one memory,” and “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
As discussed above, “adding, to a database of entries referencing a plurality of devices, an entry” amounts to extra-solution activity. MPEP § 2106.05(g), and the cases cited therein, including Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) indicate that when the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output), the limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
As discussed above, “receiving feedback from a device” amounts to extra-solution activity. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Also, the Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claims 8 and 18 recite a mathematical calculation (i.e., comparing the MSE to a second threshold). For the reasons described above with respect to claims 7 and 17, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claims 9 and 19 recite a field of use (i.e., setting a threshold based on a particular use-case), which merely indicates a technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 7 and 17, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claims 10 and 20 recite necessary data gathering and outputting (i.e., receiving feedback and updating a database), which merely amounts to extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). For the reasons described above with respect to claims 7 and 17, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khoryaev et al. (US-20160095080-A1; hereinafter Khoryaev).
Regarding claim 1, Khoryaev discloses:
A method comprising:
obtaining, by a first device (see at least Figs. 3-5, target UE 310), an absolute position for the first device (see at least Example 5 in [0076]; “This scenario assumes that target UE 310 can calculate its position by itself (e.g., based on satellite assisted location determination)…”) associated with a first tier of devices (first tier of devices is mapped to target UE(s)), where the absolute position relates to a position in a global coordinate system (see again [0076]);
obtaining, by the first device, a relative position for a second device (see at least Abs; “In one implementation, a UE may receive, via a direct connection with a second UE, a positioning reference signal from which timing information, relating to distance between the UE and second UE, is derivable; determine, based on the positioning reference signal, a first position metric that relates to a position of the UE with respect to the second UE…”. See also [0051] – [0052]; “Target UE 310 may be able to form Sidelink channels with nearby assisting UEs 420, 425, and 430. Assisting UEs 420-430 may be mobile UEs that are not anchored. The location of assisting UEs 420-430 may not be known or may not be accurately known. Target UE 310 may be attached to serving eNB 340 and may be able to receive positioning reference signals from neighboring UEs 350 and 360. [0052] In the situation of FIG. 4, the coordinates of assisting UEs 420-430 may not be known in advance to assisting UEs 420-430 and/or at location server 260. Instead, the relative position of assisting UEs 420-430 and target UE 310 may be estimated jointly by collecting the results of the position metrics obtained from the Sidelink channels (i.e., the UE-UE position metrics).”), the second device characterized as being part of a second tier of devices distinct from the first tier of devices (the second tier of devices is mapped to assisting UEs), the relative position for the second device being relative to the first device (see again [0052]); and
transmitting, by the first device to a third device, position information (see at least [0064]; “Process 600 may further include reporting the position metrics to the location server (block 640).”), wherein the position information enables the third device to obtain an estimate for the absolute position for the second device (see at least [0064]; “The reported position metrics may include, for example, the RSTDs and positioning reference signal received power, for each UE (e.g., assisting or anchor UEs) and for each neighboring eNB.” See also Example 7 in [0078]; “This example is the generalized case of Example 5, where one or more UEs are not anchored (assisting UEs). In this case, a UE position map of the anchored and non-anchored UEs may be reconstructed based on using the Sidelink channel to exchange position metrics that can be used to locate the non-anchored UEs.”), the position information including:
an indication of an estimate for the absolute position for the first device (see at least [0025]; “The location server may, for example, obtain a number of parameters, potentially including parameters relating to different types of measured position metrics (e.g., signal timing data, signal received power data) and/or parameters relating to calculated positions (e.g., coordinate data obtained from satellite assisted position systems or pre-configured during terminal installation, distance measurement relative to a reference node), and based on the parameters, determine a location (e.g., a geographical position) of UE_A.”); and
an indication of an estimate for the relative position for the second device (see again [0064] and [0078].).
Regarding claim 2, Khoryaev teaches the method of claim 1. Khoryaev further teaches:
wherein obtaining the relative position for the second device comprises:
transmitting, by the first device, a reference signal; and
receiving, by the first device from the second device, the relative position for the second device, the relative position for the second device being obtained by the second device by measuring the reference signal (see at least Example 6 in [0077]; “This situation is similar to example 5, except that the UEs may not be synchronized and two-way timing estimation is needed to synchronize the UEs. In this case, target UE 310 may transmit a message, over the Sidelink channel, to an anchor UE, and receive, over the Sidelink channel, a synchronization response message from the anchor UE. The message exchange may be used to measure round trip time and/or establish common timing.”).
Regarding claim 3, Khoryaev teaches the method of claim 1. Khoryaev further teaches:
wherein obtaining the relative position for the second device comprises:
receiving, by the first device from the second device, a reference signal (see at least [0015]; “In one implementation, User Equipment (UE) may include processing circuitry to: connect with a cellular network via a radio interface; connect with one or more other UEs, using the radio interface, to form a direct connection with the other UEs; receive, via the direct connection with the other UEs, first positioning reference signals from which first timing information, relating distances between the UE and other UEs, is derivable”); and
obtaining, by measuring the reference signal at the first device, the relative position for the second device (see at least [0017]; “In some implementations, the processing circuitry may decode payload data, associated with the first positioning reference signals, to obtain an indication of a location of one or more of the other UEs.”).
Regarding claim 11, Khoryaev discloses:
An apparatus of a first device (see at least Figs. 3-5, target UE 310), the apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, coupled to the at least one processor, storing programming for execution by the at least one processor, the programming including instructions (see at least [0020]; “Consistent with another aspect described herein, a UE may include a radio interface; a computer-readable medium to store processor executable instructions; and processing circuitry to execute the processor executable instructions.”) to cause the apparatus to:
obtain an absolute position for the first device (see at least Example 5 in [0076]; “This scenario assumes that target UE 310 can calculate its position by itself (e.g., based on satellite assisted location determination)…”) associated with a first tier of devices (first tier of devices is mapped to target UE(s)), where the absolute position relates to a position in a global coordinate system (see again [0076]);
obtaining a relative position for a second device (see at least Abs; “In one implementation, a UE may receive, via a direct connection with a second UE, a positioning reference signal from which timing information, relating to distance between the UE and second UE, is derivable; determine, based on the positioning reference signal, a first position metric that relates to a position of the UE with respect to the second UE…”. See also [0051] – [0052]; “Target UE 310 may be able to form Sidelink channels with nearby assisting UEs 420, 425, and 430. Assisting UEs 420-430 may be mobile UEs that are not anchored. The location of assisting UEs 420-430 may not be known or may not be accurately known. Target UE 310 may be attached to serving eNB 340 and may be able to receive positioning reference signals from neighboring UEs 350 and 360. [0052] In the situation of FIG. 4, the coordinates of assisting UEs 420-430 may not be known in advance to assisting UEs 420-430 and/or at location server 260. Instead, the relative position of assisting UEs 420-430 and target UE 310 may be estimated jointly by collecting the results of the position metrics obtained from the Sidelink channels (i.e., the UE-UE position metrics).”), the second device characterized as being part of a second tier of devices distinct from the first tier of devices (the second tier of devices is mapped to assisting UEs), the relative position for the second device being relative to the first device (see again [0052]); and
transmitting, to a third device, position information (see at least [0064]; “Process 600 may further include reporting the position metrics to the location server (block 640).”), wherein the position information enables the third device to obtain an estimate for the absolute position for the second device (see at least [0064]; “The reported position metrics may include, for example, the RSTDs and positioning reference signal received power, for each UE (e.g., assisting or anchor UEs) and for each neighboring eNB.” See also Example 7 in [0078]; “This example is the generalized case of Example 5, where one or more UEs are not anchored (assisting UEs). In this case, a UE position map of the anchored and non-anchored UEs may be reconstructed based on using the Sidelink channel to exchange position metrics that can be used to locate the non-anchored UEs.”), the position information including:
an indication of an estimate for the absolute position for the first device (see at least [0025]; “The location server may, for example, obtain a number of parameters, potentially including parameters relating to different types of measured position metrics (e.g., signal timing data, signal received power data) and/or parameters relating to calculated positions (e.g., coordinate data obtained from satellite assisted position systems or pre-configured during terminal installation, distance measurement relative to a reference node), and based on the parameters, determine a location (e.g., a geographical position) of UE_A.”); and
an indication of an estimate for the relative position for the second device (see again [0064] and [0078].).
Regarding claim 12, Khoryaev discloses the apparatus of claim 11. The remaining limitations of claim 12 are analogous to those of claim 2 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 13, Khoryaev discloses the apparatus of claim 11. The remaining limitations of claim 13 are analogous to those of claim 3 and are rejected for similar reasons.
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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoryaev in view of Yue et al. (CN-112887914-A; hereinafter Yue).
Regarding claim 4, Khoryaev teaches the method of claim 1. However, Khoryaev does not explicitly teach:
wherein obtaining the relative position for the second device comprises:
transmitting, by the first device, a sensing signal;
receiving a reflection of the sensing signal; and
processing the reflection of the sensing signal to obtain the relative position for the second device.
Khoryaev discloses device-to-device assisted positioning, and Yue is directed to an inter-terminal positioning method. Yue teaches:
wherein obtaining the relative position for the second device (see translation at least [0149]; “S204. Terminal A obtains the relative position of Terminal B with respect to Terminal A based on the location information of Terminal A, the location information of Terminal B, and the distance information between them.”) comprises:
transmitting, by the first device, a sensing signal;
receiving a reflection of the sensing signal; and
processing the reflection of the sensing signal to obtain the relative position for the second device (see translation at least [0148]; “It should be noted that the above ranging method is only an example. In fact, terminal A can also obtain the distance between the two in real time through other methods, such as UWB ranging, radar ranging, lidar ranging, etc., and such methods can also be independent of the existence of anchor points.” See also [0156]; “In one embodiment, the navigation information can be a relative navigation radar chart, as shown in Figure 14. After obtaining the relative position of terminal B relative to terminal A in real time, terminal A can directly display the relative position of terminal B on the display screen of terminal A using a radar chart.”).
Both Khoryaev and Yue teach methods for two devices such as smartphones to determine their relative position. Both teach measuring the distance between the devices through methods such as Fine Time Measurement (Yue [0016]) and Reference Signal Timing Differences (Khoryaev [0056]). Yue teaches that the relative device position may alternatively be found by using radar in one device to detect the position of the second device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the relative position between devices in Khoryaev could alternatively be found using radar, as suggested by Yue.
Regarding claim 5, Khoryaev teaches the method of claim 1. Khoryaev further teaches [note, what Khoryaev fails to teach is strike-through]:
wherein obtaining the relative position for the second device comprises:
receiving, by the first device from the second device, the relative position for the second device (see at least [0055]; “Process 600 may include receiving, by the target UE, positioning reference signals (block 610). As previously mentioned, the positioning reference signals may be signals received from other UEs, such as anchor UEs or non-anchored UEs, and/or from eNBs…Additionally, the positioning reference signals may include or be associated with a payload data carrying positioning related information, such as a location (e.g., a coordinate value) of the transmitting UE or eNB.”),
However, Khoryaev does not explicitly teach:
wherein the second device has obtained the relative position for the second device by:
transmitting, at the second device, a sensing signal;
receiving, at the second device, a reflection of the sensing signal; and
processing the reflection of the sensing signal, by the second device, to obtain the relative position for the second device.
Yue teaches:
wherein the second device has obtained the relative position for the second device (see translation at least [0149]; “S204. Terminal A obtains the relative position of Terminal B with respect to Terminal A based on the location information of Terminal A, the location information of Terminal B, and the distance information between them.” Because Terminal A and B may be identical devices, see [0090], either one may be mapped to either the first or second device.) by:
transmitting, at the second device, a sensing signal;
receiving, at the second device, a reflection of the sensing signal; and
processing the reflection of the sensing signal, by the second device, to obtain the relative position for the second device (see translation at least [0148]; “It should be noted that the above ranging method is only an example. In fact, terminal A can also obtain the distance between the two in real time through other methods, such as UWB ranging, radar ranging, lidar ranging, etc., and such methods can also be independent of the existence of anchor points.” See also [0156]; “In one embodiment, the navigation information can be a relative navigation radar chart, as shown in Figure 14. After obtaining the relative position of terminal B relative to terminal A in real time, terminal A can directly display the relative position of terminal B on the display screen of terminal A using a radar chart.”).
Both Khoryaev and Yue teach methods for two devices such as smartphones to determine their relative position. Both teach measuring the distance between the devices through methods such as Fine Time Measurement (Yue [0016]) and Reference Signal Timing Differences (Khoryaev [0056]). Yue teaches that the relative device position may alternatively be found by using radar in one device to detect the position of the second device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the relative position between devices in Khoryaev could alternatively be found using radar, as suggested by Yue.
Regarding claim 6, Khoryaev in view of Yue teaches the method of claim 5. Khoryaev further teaches:
further comprising:
receiving, by the first device from the second device, feedback, the feedback including an updated estimate for the relative position for the second device (see at least [0046]; “In some implementations, anchor UEs 320-330 may be configured to remain in the sleep or low-power mode for the majority of the time, but be configured, such as by eNBs 340-360, to wake up at predetermined intervals to process the synchronization signals and/or transmit positioning reference signals for the purpose of D2D assisted positioning.”); and
transmitting, by the first device to the third device, the updated estimate for the relative position for the second device (see at least [0042]; “Location server 260 may represent functionality, implemented by one or more network devices, to perform position determination functions for UEs 210-214. For example, location server 260 may receive and store parameters, relating to location determination, from UEs 210-214, eNBs 225, or from other devices…Location server 260 may periodically or occasionally calculate the locations of UEs 210-214 and maintain an up-to-date data structure that indicates the current positions of UEs 210-214. Based on the parameters, and based on the known locations of various devices, location server 260 may determine the current location of a target UE, such as one of UEs 210-214, using location calculation techniques, such as multilateration-based or proximity detection based techniques.”).
Regarding claim 14, Khoryaev discloses the apparatus of claim 11. The remaining limitations of claim 14 are analogous to those of claim 4 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 15, Khoryaev discloses the apparatus of claim 11. The remaining limitations of claim 15 are analogous to those of claim 5 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 16, Khoryaev in view of Yue discloses the apparatus of claim 15. The remaining limitations of claim 16 are analogous to those of claim 6 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 7-10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoryaev in view of Cha et al. (US-20220338203-A1; hereinafter Cha) and Chen et al. (US-20070139269-A1; hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 7, Khoryaev discloses:
A method comprising:
receiving feedback from a device, the feedback including:
a position estimate (see at least [0042]; “Location server 260 may represent functionality, implemented by one or more network devices, to perform position determination functions for UEs 210-214. For example, location server 260 may receive and store parameters, relating to location determination, from UEs 210-214, eNBs 225, or from other devices.”); and
adding, to a database of entries referencing a plurality of devices, an entry associated with the device (see at least [0042]; “Location server 260 may periodically or occasionally calculate the locations of UEs 210-214 and maintain an up-to-date data structure that indicates the current positions of UEs 210-214.”); and
characterizing, in the database, the device as located in a given tier, the characterizing based on the position estimation (Khoryaev distinguishes between anchor UEs and target UEs, see [0042]; “Some network devices may be located at a fixed, known location. For example, eNBs 225 and anchor UEs 210-214 may be installed at a fixed location. Location server 260 may store the locations of these devices. Location server 260 may periodically or occasionally calculate the locations of UEs 210-214 and maintain an up-to-date data structure that indicates the current positions of UEs 210-214. Based on the parameters, and based on the known locations of various devices, location server 260 may determine the current location of a target UE, such as one of UEs 210-214, using location calculation techniques, such as multilateration-based or proximity detection based techniques.”)
However, Khoryaev does not explicitly teach receiving a MSE for the position estimate, or comparing device’s MSE to a threshold to characterize the device.
Khoryaev discloses device-to-device assisted positioning, and Cha is directed to transmitting and receiving a signal in a wireless communication system. Cha teaches:
receiving feedback from a device (see at least Fig. 17, step 2007: “receiving information related to quality of measurement”), the feedback including:
a position estimate (see at least [0181]; “As another example, in step 3b, a location information transfer procedure may be performed. Specifically, the LMF may send a request for the location (related) information associated with the UE to the UE and indicate the type of necessary location information and associated QoS. In response to the request, the UE may transfer the location related information to the LMF. Additionally, the UE may transfer additional location related information to the LMF in one or more LPP messages. Here, the “location related information” may mean all values used for location calculation such as actual location estimate information and radio measurement or location measurement.”);
a position estimation (see at least [0348] regarding error thresholds: “For example, when the UE converts the (UE) Rx-Tx time difference/TOA/TOF/propagation time/RSTD/RSRP into a distance value (e.g., meter values), the LMF/location server/base station may discriminate between one measurement obtained when a threshold exceeds X meters and the other measurement obtained when a threshold value does not exceed X meters, and may instruct the UE to report the discriminated result. See also [0350]; “…the UE converts a measurement error (e.g., the (UE) Rx-Tx time difference/TOA/TOF/propagation time/RSTD/RSRP) into the distance value (e.g., meter values)…”); and
characterizing the device as located in a given tier, the characterizing based on the position estimation (see at least [0348]; “For example, when the UE converts the (UE) Rx-Tx time difference/TOA/TOF/propagation time/RSTD/RSRP into a distance value (e.g., meter values), the LMF/location server/base station may discriminate between one measurement obtained when a threshold exceeds X meters and the other measurement obtained when a threshold value does not exceed X meters, and may instruct the UE to report the discriminated result.”).
Both Khoryaev and Cha teach UE’s reporting their position to a server. Cha teaches the UE additionally reporting a measurement quality (a measurement error compared to a threshold). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server used in Khoryaev to include information about measurement quality, as taught by Cha. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to record measurement quality in order to exclude poor quality measurements, as recognized by Cha (see Cha at least [0348]; “In another example, in a situation where the threshold value (e.g., an error less than or equal to X meters) for the measurement quality received from the LMF/location server/BS is not satisfied, the UE may be configured/instructed to exclude and report the measurement (i.e., measurement that does not satisfy the threshold value).”).
However, neither Khoryaev nor Cha explicitly teach using mean squared error to quantify position estimation error.
Khoryaev discloses device-to-device assisted positioning, and Chen is directed to position estimation and tracking of an object. Chen teaches calculating a mean squared error to quantify an estimated position error (see paragraph [0064]).
Both Khoryaev and Chen track position over time. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate a position error estimate such as the mean squared error taught by Chen in order to determine the number of measurements to average when estimating position, as suggested by Chen (see [0066]; “Turning now to FIG. 2, illustrated is an exemplary graphical representation of RMSE as a function of distance traveled between two consecutive measurements when .alpha.=0.75 and .sigma.=3 dB. FIG. 2 shows how the minimal RMSE and the optimal m [number of averaged measurements] depend on velocity.”).
Regarding claim 8, Khoryaev in view of Cha and Chen discloses the method of claim 7. Cha further teaches:
wherein the characterizing is further based on the position estimation (see at least [0368]; “At this time, for example, the UE can autonomously determine/select a minimum measurement, and can report the determined/selected information to the LMF/location server/base station. And/or, for example, the UE may report one measurement satisfying the minimum quality and the other measurement not satisfying the minimum measurement to the LMF/location server/base station, so that the two measurements can be distinguished from each other by the LMF/location server/base station.”).
As discussed regarding claim 7, it would have been obvious to calculate the error as mean squared error in light of Chen.
It would have been obvious to combine Khoryaev and Chen for the reasons given regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, Khoryaev in view of Cha and Chen discloses the method of claim 7. Cha further teaches:
further comprising selecting the first threshold for a particular use-case or for a particular application (see at least [0347]; “For example, the network may configure/instruct, in the UE, information (e.g., cell/TP/BS ID/index, etc.) about only the expected error (not exceeding X(>0) meters) of the measurement obtained from the specific cell/TP/BS, so that the UE can report the configured/instructed information.”).
It would have been obvious to combine Khoryaev and Chen for the reasons given regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, Khoryaev in view of Cha and Chen discloses the method of claim 7. Khoryaev further teaches:
further comprising:
receiving, from the device, further feedback (see at least [0042]; “For example, location server 260 may receive and store parameters, relating to location determination, from UEs 210-214, eNBs 225, or from other devices.”); and
updating the database to alter the entry associated with the device on the basis of the further feedback (see at least [0042]; “Location server 260 may periodically or occasionally calculate the locations of UEs 210-214 and maintain an up-to-date data structure that indicates the current positions of UEs 210-214.”).
Regarding claim 17, Khoryaev discloses:
An apparatus (see at least Figs. 3-5, location server 260) comprising (see at least [0080]; “FIG. 8 is a diagram of example components of a device 800. Each of the devices illustrated in FIGS. 1-5 may include one or more devices 800.”):
at least one processor (see at least Fig. 8, processor 820); and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (see at least Fig. 8, memory 830), coupled to the at least one processor (see at least [0081]; “Bus 810 may include one or more communication paths that permit communication among the components of device 800.”), storing programming for execution by the at least one processor (see at least [0081]; “Memory 830 may include any type of dynamic storage device that may store information and instructions for execution by processor 820, and/or any type of non-volatile storage device that may store information for use by processor 820.”), the programming including instructions to cause the apparatus to:
receive feedback from a device, the feedback including:
a position estimate (see at least [0042]; “Location server 260 may represent functionality, implemented by one or more network devices, to perform position determination functions for UEs 210-214. For example, location server 260 may receive and store parameters, relating to location determination, from UEs 210-214, eNBs 225, or from other devices.”); and
add, to a database of entries referencing a plurality of devices, an entry associated with the device (see at least [0042]; “Location server 260 may periodically or occasionally calculate the locations of UEs 210-214 and maintain an up-to-date data structure that indicates the current positions of UEs 210-214.”); and
characterize, in the database, the device as located in a given tier, the characterizing based on the position estimation (Khoryaev distinguishes between anchor UEs and target UEs, see [0042]; “Some network devices may be located at a fixed, known location. For example, eNBs 225 and anchor UEs 210-214 may be installed at a fixed location. Location server 260 may store the locations of these devices. Location server 260 may periodically or occasionally calculate the locations of UEs 210-214 and maintain an up-to-date data structure that indicates the current positions of UEs 210-214. Based on the parameters, and based on the known locations of various devices, location server 260 may determine the current location of a target UE, such as one of UEs 210-214, using location calculation techniques, such as multilateration-based or proximity detection based techniques.”)
However, Khoryaev does not explicitly teach receiving a MSE for the position estimate, or comparing device’s MSE to a threshold to characterize the device.
Khoryaev discloses device-to-device assisted positioning, and Cha is directed to transmitting and receiving a signal in a wireless communication system. Cha teaches:
receive feedback from a device (see at least Fig. 17, step 2007: “receiving information related to quality of measurement”), the feedback including:
a position estimate (see at least [0181]; “As another example, in step 3b, a location information transfer procedure may be performed. Specifically, the LMF may send a request for the location (related) information associated with the UE to the UE and indicate the type of necessary location information and associated QoS. In response to the request, the UE may transfer the location related information to the LMF. Additionally, the UE may transfer additional location related information to the LMF in one or more LPP messages. Here, the “location related information” may mean all values used for location calculation such as actual location estimate information and radio measurement or location measurement.”);
a position estimation (see at least [0348] regarding error thresholds: “For example, when the UE converts the (UE) Rx-Tx time difference/TOA/TOF/propagation time/RSTD/RSRP into a distance value (e.g., meter values), the LMF/location server/base station may discriminate between one measurement obtained when a threshold exceeds X meters and the other measurement obtained when a threshold value does not exceed X meters, and may instruct the UE to report the discriminated result. See also [0350]; “…the UE converts a measurement error (e.g., the (UE) Rx-Tx time difference/TOA/TOF/propagation time/RSTD/RSRP) into the distance value (e.g., meter values)…”); and
characterize the device as located in a given tier, the characterizing based on the position estimation (see at least [0348]; “For example, when the UE converts the (UE) Rx-Tx time difference/TOA/TOF/propagation time/RSTD/RSRP into a distance value (e.g., meter values), the LMF/location server/base station may discriminate between one measurement obtained when a threshold exceeds X meters and the other measurement obtained when a threshold value does not exceed X meters, and may instruct the UE to report the discriminated result.”).
Both Khoryaev and Cha teach UE’s reporting their position to a server. Cha teaches the UE additionally reporting a measurement quality (a measurement error compared to a threshold). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the server used in Khoryaev to include information about measurement quality, as taught by Cha. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to record measurement quality in order to exclude poor quality measurements, as recognized by Cha (see Cha at least [0348]; “In another example, in a situation where the threshold value (e.g., an error less than or equal to X meters) for the measurement quality received from the LMF/location server/BS is not satisfied, the UE may be configured/instructed to exclude and report the measurement (i.e., measurement that does not satisfy the threshold value).”).
However, neither Khoryaev nor Cha explicitly teach using mean squared error to quantify position estimation error.
Khoryaev discloses device-to-device assisted positioning, and Chen is directed to position estimation and tracking of an object. Chen teaches calculating a mean squared error to quantify an estimated position error (see paragraph [0064]).
Both Khoryaev and Chen track position over time. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate a position error estimate such as the mean squared error taught by Chen in order to determine the number of measurements to average when estimating position, as suggested by Chen (see [0066]; “Turning now to FIG. 2, illustrated is an exemplary graphical representation of RMSE as a function of distance traveled between two consecutive measurements when .alpha.=0.75 and .sigma.=3 dB. FIG. 2 shows how the minimal RMSE and the optimal m [number of averaged measurements] depend on velocity.”).
Regarding claim 18, Khoryaev in view of Cha and Chen discloses the apparatus of claim 17. The remaining limitations of claim 18 are analogous to those of claim 8 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 19, Khoryaev in view of Cha and Chen discloses the apparatus of claim 17. The remaining limitations of claim 19 are analogous to those of claim 9 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 20, Khoryaev in view of Cha and Chen discloses the apparatus of claim 17. The remaining limitations of claim 20 are analogous to those of claim 10 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley B. Raynal whose telephone number is (703)756-4546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 AM - 4 PM.
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 at (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 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.
/ASHLEY BROWN RAYNAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/OLUMIDE AJIBADE AKONAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights