DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In virtue of the Response filed on 10/24/205, in which claims 1-17 are presented for examination, wherein claims 1, 17 are recited in independent form. The present Application claims priority to foreign application SE2150007-9 with a filing date of 01/08/2021, and is a 371 of PCT/EP2021/085324 with a filing date of 12/10/2021.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, without importing limitations from the specification. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is only limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked and is otherwise given the broadest reasonable interpretation without importing limitations from the claims. The Examiner had not identified any language which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, therefore the limitations will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation, without importing limitations for the specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §112 Applicant identifies limitations "calculating a value of the parameter based on a position", "calculate a value of the parameter based on a position", "a parameter of a communication link", "spatial condition" and merely asserts that One of the ordinary skill in the art would clearly understand these terms. Applicant provides no reasoning to support the assertion. Applicant provides the assertion “It is respectfully submitted that” and fails to provide any details to finish the sentence. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant assertions. Despite the feature of the claims, read in light of the specification, the Examiner must give the limitations the broadest reasonable interpretation without importing the limitations from the claims. The phrase ‘in light of’ does not transform the terms of the claims so as to uniquely reflect any limitations of the specification. The Examiner maintains the limitation “based on" does not particularly point out what calculations including position are performed such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be made aware of the requirements of the limitation, even read in light of the specification, but without importing the limitations therefrom. Requiring that something be ‘based on’ in the context to the claims does not particularly point out and distinctly claim Applicant invention and instead provides only vague description of relevant elements involved. To be granted a patent the invention must me particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed. The Examiner notes that details from the specification should be added to the claims such that the invention is particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed. Regarding the limitation "a parameter of a communication link". Applicant asserts “this term to be a parameter used in or characterizing a communication, via the communication link, with an orbiting satellite-based access node of a non-terrestrial network”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner maintains that such language is not evident from the claims as constructed using only the language which is present in each claim. Additional language which defines the ‘a parameter” should be added by amendment to the language of the claim such that the “parameter of a communication link” is particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed. The Examiner cannot import the limitation from the specification such that the claims are particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed, and the limitations must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation, without importing limitations. As to the limitation "spatial condition", Applicant asserts the term relates to a locus "given by a propagation time difference". The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation locus with language which times it to a propagation is not found in the claims and cannot be imported thereto by the Examiner. Therefore, assertions as to the meaning thereof specifically tied thereto are rendered moot. The language must be added to the language of the claims in order for the claims to be particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed. As currently claims, spatial condition is not sufficiently defined such that the invention is particularly pointed out and distinctly claimed to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner maintains that, although the claims are to be read in light of the specification, description from the specification cannot be used to render terms in the claims as particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming Applicant’s invention. As such, without importing limitations the limitations below are maintained as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which the inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §103, Applicant asserts D1, however, fails to describe "a position which satisfies a spatial condition for the UE" which is "given by a propagation time difference of the reference signal between said occasions." And Further asserts “OTDOA, the time difference disclosed in D1 is a difference between a time of transmission at a satellite and a time of reception at the UE”. The Examiner asserts that under a broadest reasonable interpretation the disclosure of TDOA includes including Time t1, Time t2 and Time t3 might be same or different, and the TOA can be measured on the same reference symbols as OTDOA and more than 3 measurement instants can be used to gain higher accuracy and Observed Time Difference Of Arrival (OTDOA) positioning makes use of the measured arrival time difference of downlink signals received from multiple fixed transmission points (TPs) at the UE. The UE measures time of arrival (ToA) of received signals based on the assistance data received from the location sever, and the resulting measurements are used to locate the UE in relation to the fixed neighbouring TPs. As in NTN the TPs are moving, the existing OTDOA positioning is unable to support the positioning purposes discussed in Section 2. Additionally, this existing OTDOA method requires that enough number of TPs are measured within one time window for one RSTD measurement report, while in the case of NTN networks there may not be multiple TPs visible within this time window. Therefore OTDOA as specified today does not work for NTN networks (see d1 Observation 3). Wherein the TDOA based on positioning (see d1 section 4) (i.e. based on a spatial condition ) for different signals received (see d1 section 3) of separate signals (see d1 section 4) (i.e. between occasions of reception of a reference signal). Thus when the claims are given the proper broadest reasonable interpretation the disclosure of d1 in view of d2 meet the limitations of the claims. In light of the above remarks, Examiner submits that the cited art, separately or in combination, does indeed, fully disclose, suggest, or render obvious, all features of independent claims 1, and 17 (and the claims that depend therefrom). The Rejections found herein are therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 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.
Claims 1, 17 set forth the limitation “based on" which does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the link between the calculating a value of the parameter and a position which satisfies a spatial condition for the UE in terms of technical limitations, rendering the metes and bounds of the claim limitation impossible to determine, the effect of the link undefined and the scope of the feature is not particularly pointed out or distinctly claimed. In the current context "based on" fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim how the calculation of the value involves or utilizes a position which satisfies a spatial condition. In the current claim construction, because of the limitation, the claims do not particularly point out Applicants invention but provides only superfluous information regarding connection between the elements without particularly pointing out or distinctly claiming that which the Applicant regards as the invention. Therefore the skilled person would not be able to ascertain the scope of the claims do to the feature thus defined. Appropriate correction is required. Dependent claims fail to further define the claim limitation in such a way that the rejection is overcome and are similarly rejected.
Claims 1, 17 recite the limitation “a communication link parameter” which fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which the Applicant regards as the invention as one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine the metes and bounds of the limitations. The estimated parameter of a communication link is not defined and the calculation is only directed to a value of it. As a parameter is seen as a set of facts which describes and puts limits on how something should happen or be done, a value thereof does not self-evidently imply what constitutes the parameter. In addition, the vast amount of possible interpretations of what constitutes a communication link parameter does not allow for a clear uniform technical effect of the feature to be established. The dependent claims, which depend on claim 1 fail to further define the claim limitation in such a way that the rejection is overcome and are similarly rejected.
Claims 1, 17 recite the limitation “spatial condition” which fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which the Applicant regards as the invention as one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine the metes and bounds of the limitations. The limitation requiring a spatial condition is not clear because being given by temporal value does not provide any clear restriction or define the scope of the limitation. The dependent claims fail to further define the claim limitation in such a way that the rejection is overcome and are similarly rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-13, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL document "Positioning in NTN" R1-1908253, 3RD GENERATION PARTNERSHIP PROJECT (3GPP), MOBILE COMPETENCE CENTRE ; 650, ROUTE DES LUCIOLES ; F-06921 SOPHIA-ANTIPOLIS CEDEX; FRANCE to 3GPP (hereinafter d1) in view of US-20210297147 to Qaise et al (hereafter d2) wherein the NPL document is cited by Applicant in the IDS of 01/24/2023 and are part of the 371 Application.
Regarding claim 1, as to the limitations “A method carried out in a user equipment (UE) for estimation of a parameter of a communication link for use in communication with an orbiting satellite-based access node of a non-terrestrial network, the method comprising:” d1 discloses Positioning in NTN including TOA Based Positioning for NTN (see section 4);
As to the limitation “determining, at repeated occasions, a time of reception (Tk) in the UE of a reference signal which is transmitted with a predetermined period (tr) from the access node; and calculating a value of the parameter based on a position (51,52) which satisfies a spatial condition for the UE, which spatial condition is given by a propagation time difference (Ak) of the reference signal between said occasions” d1 discloses Doppler compensation, uplink timing advance and located country identification for all NTN UEs utilizing a method, based on OTDOA, including a minimum positioning reporting period is configured to the UE. The method includes a UE configured with a minimum number of cells to measure. After it has measured the Time of Arrival (TOA) from this number of satellites it can stop measuring until the next positioning period starts. The UE stores the measured TOA together with the Cell ID and the reference timing, representing the time of the measurement. The UE is allowed to measure the same satellite several times as long as there is a minimum time between the measurements. This is to ensure that the satellite has moved enough to be seen as a new location. At the opportunity when the UE gets active the UE sends the TOA values from the different satellites and the timestamps they are taken to the network and location server. The location server has knowledge of the location of every satellite at every time and can therefore deduct the location of the UE in question based on the TOA values, cell IDs and the timestamps. Note the UE location is estimated before the UE becomes RRC_connected, allowing the network to comply with regulations and policies of specific areas/locations, i.e. potentially preventing the UE from accessing the network. The method includes a UE that measures ToA of the reference signals of a number of satellite points as shown in Figure 1. With reference to Fig. 1: at Time t1, the UE measures the ToA1 to satellite cell 1 at orbit 1; at Time t2, the UE measures the ToA2 to satellite cell 2 at orbit 2 or satellite cell 1 at a second position. As the satellites move the location is different and provided the satellite has moved enough we can reuse the same satellite cell; At Time t3, the UE measures the ToA3 to satellite cell 3 at orbit 3 or of satellite 1 or 2 at a third position. Note that Time t1, Time t2 and Time t3 might be same or different, and the TOA can be measured on the same reference symbols as OTDOA and more than 3 measurement instants can be used to gain higher accuracy. The UE provides the network with this measured information, such the network can estimate the position. This information can be given back to the UE such it can derive timing advance, Doppler information and potentially the country or the network can calculate this values for the UE and provide the calculated values directly.
d1 does not appear to explicitly disclose a method carried out in a user equipment, although the disclosure of d1 is particularly relevant to the limitation and may meet the requirements under a broadest reasonable interpretation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d2 which, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication, teaches a method carried out in a user equipment (see d2 para. 0009-0010, 0052-0053).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2 it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve efficiency (see d2 para. 0055, 0081). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) for similar purposes (enhanced efficiency) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, as to the limitation “The method of claim 1, wherein the value of the parameter is calculated based on the reference signal as received from a single satellite-based access node” d1 in view of d2 discloses the value of the parameter is calculated based on the reference signal as received from a single satellite-based access node (see d2 para. 0027, 0112-0113).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2 it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve efficiency (see d2 para. 0055, 0081). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) for similar purposes (enhanced efficiency) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, as to the limitation “The method of claim 1 wherein said position satisfies said spatial condition based on at least three occasions” d1 in view of d2 discloses a position satisfies said spatial condition based on at least three occasions (see d2 para. 0027).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2 it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve efficiency (see d2 para. 0055, 0081). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) for similar purposes (enhanced efficiency) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, as to the limitation “The method of claim 1, wherein said position satisfies said spatial condition based on at least four occasions” d1 in view of d2 discloses position satisfies said spatial condition based on a plurality of occasions wherefrom at least four occasions is obvious (see d2 para. 0027).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2 it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve efficiency (see d2 para. 0055, 0081). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) for similar purposes (enhanced efficiency) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, as to the limitation “The method of claim 1, wherein said spatial condition comprises a hyperbolic condition” d1 in view of d2 discloses a hyperbolic condition (see d1 Fig. 1, d2 para. 0097).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2 it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve efficiency (see d2 para. 0055, 0081). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) for similar purposes (enhanced efficiency) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, as to the limitation “The method of claim 5, wherein said hyperbolic condition identifies an intersection between a plurality of hyperbolas” d1 in view of d2 discloses hyperbolic condition identifies an intersection between a plurality of hyperbolas (see d1 Fig. 1, d2 para. 0097).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2 it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve efficiency (see d2 para. 0055, 0081). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) for similar purposes (enhanced efficiency) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, as to the limitation “The method of claim 6, wherein said hyperbolic condition further identifies intersection between the plurality of hyperbolas and the Earth surface” d1 in view of d2 discloses identifies intersection between the plurality of hyperbolas and the Earth surface (see d1 Fig. 1, d2 para. 0097).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2 it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve efficiency (see d2 para. 0055, 0081). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) for similar purposes (enhanced efficiency) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, as to the limitation “The method of claim 6, wherein each of said hyperbolas are determined based on a pair of said occasions” d1 in view of d2 discloses hyperbolas are determined based on a pair of said occasions (see d1 Fig. 1; d2 para. 0097).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2 it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve efficiency (see d2 para. 0055, 0081). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) for similar purposes (enhanced efficiency) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, as to the limitation “The method of claim 1, wherein said position identifies a distance between the UE and the access node” d1 in view of d2 discloses a distance between the UE and the access node (see d2 para. 0160).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2 it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve efficiency (see d2 para. 0055, 0081). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) for similar purposes (enhanced efficiency) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, as to the limitation “The method of claim 1, wherein said propagation time difference is given by a difference in the time of reception between a later occasion and an earlier occasion, subtracted by a difference in time of transmission based on said period” d1 in view of d2 discloses propagation time difference is given by a difference in the time of reception between a later occasion and an earlier occasion, subtracted by a difference in time of transmission based on said period (see d2 para. 0019-0026, 0096-0097, 0171, 0181).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2 it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve efficiency (see d2 para. 0055, 0081). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) for similar purposes (enhanced efficiency) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 11, as to the limitation “The method of claim 1, wherein said spatial condition is determined for a number of occasions, wherein said number is determined based on a control parameter” d1 in view of d2 discloses spatial condition that is determined for a number of occasions, wherein said number is determined based on a control parameter (see d2 para. 0040-0041, 0132-0133, 0161, 0173).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2 it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve efficiency (see d2 para. 0055, 0081). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) for similar purposes (enhanced efficiency) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, as to the limitation “The method of claim 11, wherein said control parameter is dependent on said period” d1 in view of d2 discloses a control parameter that is dependent on a period (see d2 para. 0040-0041, 0132-0133, 0161, 0173).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2 it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve efficiency (see d2 para. 0055, 0081). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) for similar purposes (enhanced efficiency) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13, as to the limitation “The method of claim 11, wherein said control parameter is an accuracy level of the calculated value of the parameter, wherein number is incremented until the accuracy level is obtained” d1 in view of d2 discloses a control parameter that is an accuracy level of the calculated value of the parameter, wherein number is incremented until the accuracy level is obtained (see d2 para. 0133-0134, 0150, 0161, 0181, 0207).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2 it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve efficiency (see d2 para. 0055, 0081). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) for similar purposes (enhanced efficiency) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15, as to the limitation “The method of claim 1, wherein said parameter is timing advance” d1 in view of d2 discloses a parameter that is timing advance (see d2 para. 0216-0219, 0224).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2 it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve efficiency (see d2 para. 0055, 0081). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) for similar purposes (enhanced efficiency) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 16, as to the limitation “The method of claim 1, wherein said parameter is Doppler pre compensation” d1 in view of d2 discloses a parameter that is Doppler pre compensation (see d2 para. 0016, 0031-0032, 0055, 0100, 0133-0134, 0158, 0164-0169, 0173-0176, 0183-0191, Table 1).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d2 it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve efficiency (see d2 para. 0055, 0081). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) for similar purposes (enhanced efficiency) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17, as to the limitations “A user equipment(UE), configured for communication with an orbiting satellite-based access node of a non-terrestrial network operation with a wireless network, said UE comprising: a wireless transceiver configured to control the wireless transceiver and to estimate a parameter of a communication link for use in communication with the access node, including to:” d1 discloses Positioning in NTN including TOA Based Positioning for NTN (see section 4);
As to the limitation “determine, at repeated occasions, a time of reception in the UE of a reference signal which is transmitted with a predetermined period from the access node; and calculate a value of the parameter based on a position which satisfies a spatial condition for the UE, which spatial condition is given by a propagation time difference of the reference signal between said occasions” d1 discloses Doppler compensation, uplink timing advance and located country identification for all NTN UEs utilizing a method, based on OTDOA, including a minimum positioning reporting period is configured to the UE. The method includes a UE configured with a minimum number of cells to measure. After it has measured the Time of Arrival (TOA) from this number of satellites it can stop measuring until the next positioning period starts. The UE stores the measured TOA together with the Cell ID and the reference timing, representing the time of the measurement. The UE is allowed to measure the same satellite several times as long as there is a minimum time between the measurements. This is to ensure that the satellite has moved enough to be seen as a new location. At the opportunity when the UE gets active the UE sends the TOA values from the different satellites and the timestamps they are taken to the network and location server. The location server has knowledge of the location of every satellite at every time and can therefore deduct the location of the UE in question based on the TOA values, cell IDs and the timestamps. Note the UE location is estimated before the UE becomes RRC_connected, allowing the network to comply with regulations and policies of specific areas/locations, i.e. potentially preventing the UE from accessing the network. The method includes a UE that measures ToA of the reference signals of a number of satellite points as shown in Figure 1. With reference to Fig. 1: at Time t1, the UE measures the ToA1 to satellite cell 1 at orbit 1; at Time t2, the UE measures the ToA2 to satellite cell 2 at orbit 2 or satellite cell 1 at a second position. As the satellites move the location is different and provided the satellite has moved enough we can reuse the same satellite cell; At Time t3, the UE measures the ToA3 to satellite cell 3 at orbit 3 or of satellite 1 or 2 at a third position. Note that Time t1, Time t2 and Time t3 might be same or different, and the TOA can be measured on the same reference symbols as OTDOA and more than 3 measurement instants can be used to gain higher accuracy. The UE provides the network with this measured information, such the network can estimate the position. This information can be given back to the UE such it can derive timing advance, Doppler information and potentially the country or the network can calculate this values for the UE and provide the calculated values directly.
d1 does not appear to explicitly disclose a method carried out in a user equipment, including a transceiver and logic although the disclosure of d1 is particularly relevant to the limitation and may meet the requirements under a broadest reasonable interpretation, in order to provide the most complete and effective examination, attention is directed to d2 which, in a similar field of endeavor of wireless communication, teaches a method carried out in a user equipment with transceiver and logic (see d2 para. 0009-0010, 0052-0053).
Regarding a motivation to combine d1 and d1 it is noted that d1 and d2 are executed in similar field of endeavor (wireless communication), involving similar procedure (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) wherein the disclosure of d1 and/or d2 also contains ample teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention including to improve efficiency (see d2 para. 0055, 0081). Such teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation, is found in references d1 and/or d2, as well as being found squarely within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would look to modify d1 with the teaching of d2 in order to achieve the stated advantages of improved efficiency. Furthermore, the techniques are employed in the same field of endeavor (wireless communication) in a similar manner (TOA Based Positioning for NTN) for similar purposes (enhanced efficiency) which would yield a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN SCOTT TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)270-3189. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Thurs. 9:00-4:00.
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, JINSONG HU can be reached on 5712723965. 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.
/NATHAN S TAYLOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643