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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants’ communication filed on 02/27/2026. In virtue of this communication, claims 54-55, 69-88 are currently pending in the instant application.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 70-77, 82-84, and 86-88 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Previous claims 50, 54 and 69 recite a distinct invention from newly added claim 70 and dependents therefrom. Further newly added claim 70 would require a different search and different prior art.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 70-77, 82-84, and 86-88 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 54-55, 69, 78-81 and 85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 54 recites the central station and later referred to a station when limiting “…providing the terminal with data from which time elapsed between reception of the terminal's transmission by the satellite, and the transmission of the station's reply by satellite can be derived…” It is indefinite as to whether this is the central station, the request and the response that was limited prior. In other words, the claim should state seems to refer to the central station, the request and the response, not the station, the transmission and the reply as those were not introduced.
Further, Claim 54 states “at the terminal, for each of at least one respective satellites, measuring time of arrival and/or round-trip time” and then states “determining a round-trip time including a duration of the round-trip via said at least one respective satellites.” Therefore, if the claim uses the alternate of measuring the TOA, then the following limitations would be irrelevant making it also indefinite.
Still further, claim 54 states “wherein the terminal synchronizes its own clock with the communicant's time system.” However, it is indefinite what the terminal is using to conclude with synchronizing it’s clock to the communicant time system. The claim recites, the terminal measures TOA, total round trip time, round trip time from satellite to station, derives synchronization data of terminal internal clock and a reference time system but no mention how they are used and what is used to synchronize terminal’s own clock with a communicant.
Lastly, claim 54 states “…wherein the terminal synchronizes its own clock with the communicant's time system.” It is unclear if the time system is the time system of the communicant central station and not just the communicant. A communicant wasn’t individually introduced, only the communicant central station. Claim 69 is indefinite for the same reasons above has similar discrepancies on the nomenclature as described above.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 54-55, 69, 78-81 and 85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Opshaug (US 2020/0112867 A1) in view of Bao et al. (US 2022/0086822 A1).
Regarding Claim 54 Opshaug teaches the limitations "A method for self-orientation of a terminal in time or space, the method comprising:
providing a communicant central station to which a terminal sends at least one request via each of at least one respective relay satellites, and wherein the central station, responsive to said at least one request, sends at least one response to the terminal, via said at least one satellite, thereby to define a round-trip from the terminal to the communicant central station and back; at the terminal, for each of at least one respective satellites, measuring time of arrival and/or round-trip time; (see abstract, fig. 2, fig. 10 and par. 0050, where UE 102 sends request to central station (140) via satellite (par. 0050 “These access points can be terrestrial access points (or ground stations), or satellite access points”) and receives responses (see fig. 10) where the UE determines round trip time (see abstract));
providing the terminal with data from which time elapsed between reception of the terminal's transmission by the satellite, and the transmission of the station's reply by satellite can be derived, and accordingly, determining a round-trip time including a duration of the round-trip via said at least one respective satellites." (see abstract “The signaling data comprises one of a processing delay between a time of arrival (TOA) of the uplink RTT reference signal and a time of transmission (TOT) of the downlink RTT reference signal or a total RTT between the TOT of the downlink RTT reference signal and the TOA of the uplink RTT reference signal. The signaling data is sent to a single entity, other than the UE, e.g., another gNodeB or a location server, where signaling data relevant to the UE is aggregated. The aggregated signaling data may be sent to the UE to determine the RTT for the UE.”);
However, Opshaug does not explicitly disclose the limitation “deriving self-orientation data including at least: synchronization data including a difference between the terminal's internal clock's current time, and a reference time system; wherein the terminal synchronizes its own clock with the communicant's time system.”
In the same field of endeavor Bao discloses a timing calibration error is a timing error that is caused by imperfect timing calibration. That is, timing calibration is the process of accounting for timing errors and compensating for them (e.g., by adjusting an internal clock, by changing an internal delay time, by including a compensation value in a calculation, etc.), and an imperfect timing calibration does not perfectly compensate for the timing errors. Timing calibration errors and other types of calibration errors may occur at both transmitter and receiver, e.g., at both the gNB and the UE. The following definitions are used herein for the purpose of discussion of internal timing errors (see abstract, fig. 3b, fig. 5a and par. 0105). Par. 0115 then shows “These errors affect timing-based positioning measurements, such as ToA, RTT, RSTD, etc. In addition to the Tx timing errors and Rx timing errors described in FIG. 5A, timing calibration errors also include gNB synchronization errors, e.g., when the system clocks of two gNBs are not precisely aligned together. A UE or an LMF or other location server, may use Kalman filtering-like techniques to track each error in the total calibration error, and may report each of the errors individually, the sum of all errors, or both.” Lastly, par. 0119 shows “The use of calibration regions has several benefits, including: using the calibration region for TOA measurement calibration; notifying the network of detected calibration error (bias); notifying other UEs of the detected bias, e.g., via sidelink (SL) communications; notifying the base station of clock synchronization errors (which assists with clock synchronization across the network.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to derive and offset between a terminal’s own clock and a reference time and to synchronize with a network time as taught by Bao in the system of Opshaug, in order to assist with clock synchronization across the network (see par. 0119) and provide better position determination. (see par. 0057).
Claim 69 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 55 Opshaug and Bao teach the limitations "The method of claim 54, wherein the data from which said elapsed time can be derived includes at least one of:
internal delay characterizing the communicant central station and each of at least one respective satellites;
the positions of the station and of the satellite;
the travel time; and
a sum of the total travel time and the internal delays" (see Opshaug abstract “The signaling data comprises one of a processing delay between a time of arrival (TOA) of the uplink RTT reference signal and a time of transmission (TOT) of the downlink RTT reference signal or a total RTT between the TOT of the downlink RTT reference signal and the TOA of the uplink RTT reference signal.”).
Regarding Claim 78 Opshaug and Bao teach the limitations "The method according to claim 54, wherein said communicant comprises a satellite that relays the terminal's transmission back to the terminal, and there is no other satellite involved in the communication loop" (see Opshaug abstract, fig. 10 and par. 0050, where access points relay RTT requests and are satellites and other gNBs can be terrestrial).
Regarding Claim 79 Opshaug and Bao teach the limitations "The method according to claim 54, wherein said communicant comprises a central station serving plural terminals" (see fig. 1, 2 (140) and fig. 10 and par. 0050 “UEs 102-1 to 102-N”) showing central station serving multiple terminals.
Regarding Claim 80 Opshaug and Bao teach the limitations "The method according to claim 54, wherein said self-orientation data comprises self-positioning information regarding said terminal's position" (see fig. 2 and par. 0056 “FIG. 2 shows an architecture based on a non-roaming 5G NR network to support UE positioning using RTT measurements.”).
Regarding Claim 81 Opshaug and Bao teach the limitations "The method of claim 54, wherein the communicant serves more than 1 terminal" (see fig. 1, 2 (140) and fig. 10 and par. 0050 “UEs 102-1 to 102-N”) showing central station serving multiple terminals.
Regarding Claim 85 Opshaug and Bao teach the limitations "The method of claim 54, wherein the terminal comprises a moving terminal and wherein at least 2 transactions, each including at least one request and response, are used each time the terminal derives self-orientation data" (see abstract, where there are multiple requests and responses (i.e. transactions) and par. 0067 “For example, trigger events may include an area event, a motion event or a velocity event. An area event, for example, may be the UE moving into a defined area, moving out of the area and/or remaining in the area. A motion event, for example, may include movement of the UE by a threshold straight line distance or threshold distance along a UE trajectory.”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID BILODEAU whose telephone number is (571)270-3192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00am-4:00pm Eastern Standard Time.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/David Bilodeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights