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
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 10/27/2025 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1, 2 16 and 19 are amended, claims 20-27 are canceled, and claims 1-19 are currently pending.
Applicant's amendments with respect to claims 1 and 2 have been fully considered, thus claim objections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that the amendment to claims 1 (and similarly to claims 16 and 19 clarifies that the uplink signal is transmitted from the communications device to the NTN, and is not directed to a mental process as asserted in the Office Action, and respectfully request withdraw of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. These limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As such, a person could determine to speak to another person or leader [i.e., transmit the uplink signal from communications device to the NTN] at a determined time [i.e., the uplink time]. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a communications device does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “determining to not transmit any uplink signal” on line 4, Examiner suggest changing the limitation to “determining to not transmit uplink signal”.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the determining is performed” on line 1, Examiner suggests changing the limitation to “wherein the determining the uplink time is performed”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 16 and 19 are directed to abstract idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”, for example determining not to transmit uplink signal; receiving motion information; determining an uplink time to transmit an uplink signal based on motion information; and transmitting the uplink signal at the uplink time. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such.
The exemplary method claim 1 recites limitations, “A method of operating a communications device configured to transmit uplink signals to and/or to receive downlink signals from a non-terrestrial infrastructure equipment forming part of a non-terrestrial network (NTN) the method comprising: determining to not transmit any uplink signal until at least a time after the communications device receives first motion information of the non-terrestrial infrastructure equipment; receiving, from the non-terrestrial infrastructure equipment, the first motion information; based on a modulo function applied to information specific to the communications device and on determining that the communications device has received the first motion information, determining an uplink time to transmit an uplink signal; and transmitting the uplink signal from the communications device to the NTN at the uplink time”. Since the claim is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim recites determining not to transmit uplink signal; receiving motion information; determining an uplink time to transmit an uplink signal based on motion information; and transmitting the uplink signal at the uplink time. These limitations without showing steps or functions recited in the claim is no more than an abstract idea i.e., mental process of determining not to transmit an uplink signal, receiving motion information, determining uplink transmission time and transmitting the uplink at the uplink time, etc. (Step 2A: Prong One Abstract Idea = YES).
The claim is then analyzed if it requires an additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, reply on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – i.e., limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application; improving the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. In the current claims, there is no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A: Prong Two Abstract Idea = YES).
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitation recited in the claim such that the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. In the current scenario there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: NO). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 16 and 19 recite similar features as claim 1, therefore is analyzed in similar fashion as discussed above regarding claim 1. Further, dependent claims 2-15, 17 and 18 do not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of the claim and does not carry patentable weight they are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayeed et al. (US 20110256865 A1 and Sayeed hereinafter), in view of Sedin et al. (US 20220248286 A1 and Sedin hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Sayeed teaches a method of operating a communications device configured to transmit uplink signals to and/or to receive downlink signals from a non-terrestrial infrastructure equipment forming part of a non-terrestrial network (NTN) (Paragraph 0024; the user equipment communicates with satellite 110 via respective uplink and downlink channels) the method comprising:
determining to not transmit any uplink signal until at least a time after the communications device receives first motion information of the non-terrestrial infrastructure equipment (Paragraph 0025; the user equipment 102 receives satellite data that may comprise position and velocity of the satellite 110. Paragraphs 0031 and 0042; the UE determines both a timing adjustment and a frequency adjustment, utilizing the ephemeris data that indicates the latest position and velocity of the satellite [interpreted as first motion information], and then utilizes the adjustments to control the respective timing and frequency of an uplink communication to the satellite. Examiner asserts that when timing adjustment is applied to the uplink signal, it is interpreted as not transmit uplink signal until a time after the communication device receives first motion information);
receiving, from the non-terrestrial infrastructure equipment, the first motion information (Paragraphs 0025 and 0031; the user equipment 102 receives satellite data may comprise the position and velocity of the satellite 110 [interpreted as the first motion]);
based on information specific to the communications device (Paragraphs 0034 and 0035; the user equipment obtains its position and the UE utilizes its corresponding distance measure as determined above to compute a corresponding measure of the time delay between itself and the satellite 110) and on determining that the communications device has received the first motion information (Paragraphs 0031 and 0042; the UE determines both a timing adjustment and a frequency adjustment, utilizing the ephemeris data that indicates the latest position and velocity of the satellite [interpreted as first motion information], and then utilizes the adjustments to control the respective timing and frequency of an uplink communication to the satellite. Examiner asserts that when timing adjustment is applied to the uplink signal, it is interpreted as not transmit uplink signal until a time after the communication device receives first motion information when the UE determines the timing adjustment), determining an uplink time to transmit an uplink signal (Paragraphs 0031, 0037 and 0043; the UE determines both a timing adjustment and a frequency adjusting, utilizing the ephemeris data that indicates the latest position and velocity of the satellite 110, and then utilizes the adjustments to control the respective timing and frequency of an uplink communication to the satellite 110); and
transmitting the uplink signal from the communications device to the NTN at the uplink time (Paragraphs 0031, 0042 and 0043; timing and frequency adjustments are applied to the uplink signal from the user equipment to the satellite).
Sayeed does not explicitly teach based on a modulo function applied to information specific to the communication device, determining an uplink time to transit an uplink signal. In an analogous art, Sedin teaches based on a modulo function applied to information specific to the communication device, determining an uplink time to transit an uplink signal (Paragraphs 0052 and 0061; UE transmits a PRACH preamble [interpreted as an uplink signal] in non-terrestrial networks (NTN) is a function of the UE identifier. In one non-limiting example, PRACH resources are configured in subframe n.sub.j, j=0, . . . , J−1, during a PRACH resource window. The UE transmits a PRACH preamble in the subframe n.sub.idx with index idx, where idx=UE_ID mod J. Paragraphs 0138 and 0139; the wireless device determines a random access occasion [interpreted as uplink time to transmit uplink signal] based on an identifier of the wireless device by selecting the random access occasion with an index equal to the identifier of the wireless device modulo j). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sayeed and Sedin because it would increase cell capacity by allocating percentage of capacity to wireless device random access (Sedin, Paragraph 0200).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sayeed and Sedin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Sayeed teaches wherein the determining is performed based on first signalling information received by the communication device at a first time (Paragraph 0025; the user equipment 102 receives satellite data that may comprise position and velocity of the satellite 110. The satellite data 222 may comprise data indicative of the position and velocity of the satellite 110).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sayeed and Sedin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Sayeed teaches wherein the information specific to the communications device is based on a unique identifier of the communications device (Paragraph 0025; the ephemeris data may be received by the user equipment over any type of channel, including a unicast downlink channel of the satellite. If a unicast downlink channel is used, a handshake protocol used to establish a corresponding connection between the satellite and the user equipment may be modified in a straightforward manner to support transmission of the ephemeris data. Examiner asserts when in unicast communication, user equipment is identified by a unique identifier).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sayeed and Sedin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Sayeed teaches wherein the first motion information is included within second signalling information, and wherein the second signalling information is received at a second time (Paragraph 0025; the latest ephemeris data may be obtained periodically by the user equipment 102 in any number of different ways, such as via a broadcast channel (e.g., eMBMS) from the satellite 110 or from another satellite of the system, via terrestrial cellular links, via side loading, etc. The satellite data 222 may comprise data indicative of the position and velocity of the satellite 110).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Sayeed and Sedin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Sayeed teaches wherein the information specific to the communications device is based on an access class of the communications device (Paragraph 0025; the latest ephemeris data may be obtained periodically by the user equipment 102 in any number of different ways, such as via a broadcast channel (e.g., eMBMS) from the satellite 110 or from another satellite of the system. The satellite data 222 may comprise data indicative of the position and velocity of the satellite 110).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Sayeed and Sedin teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Sayeed teaches further comprising: preparing an uplink signal for transmission to the NTN (Paragraphs 0031 and 0042; the UE determines both a timing adjustment and a frequency adjustment, utilizing the ephemeris data that indicates the latest position and velocity of the satellite [interpreted as first motion information], and then utilizes the adjustments to control the respective timing and frequency of an uplink communication to the satellite); wherein the information specific to the communications device is based on a time at which the communications device prepared the uplink signal for transmission to the NTN (Paragraphs 0032 and 0035; the UE utilize its corresponding distance measure as determined above to compute a corresponding measure of the time delay between itself and the satellite 110).
Regarding claim 16, Sayeed teaches a method of operating a communications device configured to transmit uplink signals to and/or to receive downlink signals from a non-terrestrial infrastructure equipment forming part of a non-terrestrial network (NTN) (Paragraph 0024; the user equipment communicates with satellite 110 via respective uplink and downlink channels) the method comprising:
determining to not transmit any uplink signal until at least a time after the communications device receives first motion information of the non-terrestrial infrastructure equipment (Paragraph 0025; the user equipment 102 receives satellite data that may comprise position and velocity of the satellite 110. Paragraphs 0031 and 0042; the UE determines both a timing adjustment and a frequency adjustment, utilizing the ephemeris data that indicates the latest position and velocity of the satellite [interpreted as first motion information], and then utilizes the adjustments to control the respective timing and frequency of an uplink communication to the satellite. Examiner asserts that when timing adjustment is applied to the uplink signal, it is interpreted as not transmit uplink signal until a time after the communication device receives first motion information);
preparing a first uplink signal for transmission to the NTN (Paragraphs 0031 and 0042; the UE determines both a timing adjustment and a frequency adjustment, utilizing the ephemeris data that indicates the latest position and velocity of the satellite [interpreted as first motion information], and then utilizes the adjustments to control the respective timing and frequency of an uplink communication to the satellite);
determining that the communications device has already received the first motion information (Paragraphs 0025 and 0031; the user equipment 102 receives satellite data may comprise the position and velocity of the satellite 110 [interpreted as the first motion]);
based on determining that the communications device has already received the first motion information (Paragraphs 0031 and 0042; the UE determines both a timing adjustment and a frequency adjustment, utilizing the ephemeris data that indicates the latest position and velocity of the satellite [interpreted as first motion information], and then utilizes the adjustments to control the respective timing and frequency of an uplink communication to the satellite. Examiner asserts that when timing adjustment is applied to the uplink signal, it is interpreted as not transmit uplink signal until a time after the communication device receives first motion information), transmitting a first uplink signal from the communication device to the NTN at a first time (Paragraphs 0031, 0037 and 0043; the UE determines both a timing adjustment and a frequency adjusting, utilizing the ephemeris data that indicates the latest position and velocity of the satellite 110, and then utilizes the adjustments to control the respective timing and frequency of an uplink communication from the UE to the satellite).
Sayeed does not explicitly teach transmitting an uplink signal at a first time determined based on applying a modulo function to information specific to the communication device. In an analogous art, Sedin teaches transmitting an uplink signal at a first time determined based on applying a modulo function to information specific to the communication device (Paragraphs 0052 and 0061; UE transmits a PRACH preamble [interpreted as an uplink signal] in non-terrestrial networks (NTN) is a function of the UE identifier. In one non-limiting example, PRACH resources are configured in subframe n.sub.j, j=0, . . . , J−1, during a PRACH resource window. The UE transmits a PRACH preamble in the subframe n.sub.idx with index idx, where idx=UE_ID mod J. Paragraphs 0138 and 0139; the wireless device determines a random access occasion [interpreted as uplink time to transmit uplink signal] based on an identifier of the wireless device by selecting the random access occasion with an index equal to the identifier of the wireless device modulo j). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sayeed and Sedin because it would increase cell capacity by allocating percentage of capacity to wireless device random access (Sedin, Paragraph 0200).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Sayeed and Sedin teaches all of the limitations of claim 16, as described above. Further, Sayeed teaches wherein determining that the communications device has already received the first motion information comprises determining that a time difference between a previous reception of motion information of the non-terrestrial infrastructure equipment and a time at which the first uplink signal is prepared for transmissions is less than a predetermined threshold (Paragraph 0025; the latest ephemeris data may be obtained periodically by the user equipment 102 in any number of different ways, such as via a broadcast channel (e.g., eMBMS) from the satellite 110 or from another satellite of the system, via terrestrial cellular links, via side loading, etc. The satellite data 222 may comprise data indicative of the position and velocity of the satellite 110. Paragraphs 0031, 0037 and 0043; the UE determines both a timing adjustment and a frequency adjusting, utilizing the ephemeris data that indicates the latest position and velocity of the satellite 110, and then utilizes the adjustments to control the respective timing and frequency of an uplink communication to the satellite 110. Examiner asserts since the motion information / velocity is received periodically, the time difference between a previous reception and the time for uplink message preparation is less than the periodicity/frequency of the updated ephemeris data/velocity).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Sayeed and Sedin teaches all of the limitations of claim 16, as described above. Further, Sayeed teaches further comprising: receiving, at a second time, second motion information of the non-terrestrial infrastructure equipment, wherein the second time is after the first time (Paragraphs 0025 and 0026; the latest ephemeris data may be obtained periodically by the user equipment 102 in any number of different ways, such as via a broadcast channel (e.g., eMBMS) from the satellite 110 or from another satellite of the system, via terrestrial cellular links, via side loading, etc. The satellite data 222 may comprise data indicative of the position and velocity of the satellite 110).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites similar features as claim 1, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1. Further, Sayeed teaches a communications device (Figure 4; UE 102) comprising: a transceiver configured to transmit uplink signals to and/or to receive downlink signals from a non-terrestrial infrastructure equipment forming part of a non-terrestrial network, NTN (Figure 4 and Paragraph 0024; the user equipment communicate with satellite 110 via respective uplink and downlink channels); and a controller configured in combination with the transceiver to perform (Paragraph 0028; memory 202 of the user equipment 102 may be used to store one or more software programs that are executed by the processor 200 to implement at least a portion of the functionality described herein).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Beidas et al. (US 20020141356 A1) discloses stations receive the beacon signal, and in combination with satellite ephemeris information, coordinate their respective transmissions of their respective uplink signals so that they arrive at the satellite in their respective assigned time slots.
Masal et al. (US 11910339 B2) discloses performing uplink (UL) time synchronization in non-terrestrial networks (NTN) include Performing Downlink (DL) synchronization SSB signals.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Claims 6-12 are objected by the virtue of their dependency from objected claim 5.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Applicant's invention is drawn to determining transmission time/delay for uplink signal to satellite.
The prior arts of record, Sayeed, Beidas, Masal, and a thorough search discloses various aspects and features of applicant's claimed invention but fail to explicitly or implicitly teach or disclose receiving third signalling information; and determining that the third signalling information comprises an indication of whether the communications device is permitted to transmit the uplink signal to the NTN, based on the information specific to the communications device; wherein the determination of the uplink time is additionally based on the indication included in the third signalling information; and wherein the third signalling information is received at a third time, as disclosed in dependent claim 5; and
generating one or more random numbers, wherein the information specific to the communications device comprises the one or more random numbers; wherein determining the uplink time is additionally based on the one or more random numbers, as disclosed in dependent claim 14.
These functions, in combination of remaining functions are neither taught nor disclosed by the prior art. Accordingly, claims 5 and 14 would be allowed, and claims 6-12 would be allowed based on their dependency from claim 5.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jing Gao whose telephone number is (571)270-7226. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am - 6pm M-F.
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 Alison Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. 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.
/Jing Gao/
Examiner
Art Unit 2647