DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the claim amendments overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections (response pages 10-11), Examiner agrees, and the rejections are withdrawn. New rejections have been made, necessitated by the amendments.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the claim amendments overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 prior art rejections of independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 22 and their dependents (response pages 11-14), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the rejections below for details.
Regarding Applicant's argument that the rejection of claims 4, 11, 18, and 25 is based on official notice (response pages 14-15), Examiner respectfully disagrees. A rejection based on official notice does not cite documentary evidence - see MPEP 2144.03. Examiner's rejection cites Endo and Vacher as evidence.
Regarding Applicant's argument that Endo and Vacher fail to mention "line of sight" at all, let alone "determining the tunnel exit of the user equipment based on the measurement error..." (response page 15), both Endo and Vacher teach methods for detecting multipath, and one of ordinary skill would recognize that, when multipath is *not* detected, the signal in question is a line of sight signal. Regarding Applicant's argument that Endo and Vacher do not mention "determining the tunnel exit of the user equipment based on the measurement error...", the rejections do not allege that Endo and Vacher teach this feature.
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, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, 18, 20-22, 24, 25, and 27-32 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.
Regarding claim 1 lines 9-15 and corresponding portions of claims 8, 15, and 22, the scope of "determining the tunnel exit of the user equipment in response to determining that the one or more parameters indicate line of sight between the user equipment and the at least one of the one or more satellite vehicles, wherein determining the tunnel exit is based at least in part on a second determination that the at least one of the one or more satellite vehicles has an elevation above a threshold elevation in response to a first determination of a comparison of at least one of the one or more parameters with one or more threshold values" cannot be clearly determined, as it is unclear which determinations are performed, what order the determinations are performed in, and what the determinations are based on.
Lines 9-12 “determining the tunnel exit of the user equipment in response to determining that the one or more parameters indicate line of sight between the user equipment and the at least one of the one or more satellite vehicles” appear to describe determining the tunnel exit based on one or more parameters indicating line of sight.
However in lines 11-15 “wherein determining the tunnel exit is based at least in part on a second determination that the at least one of the one or more satellite vehicles has an elevation above a threshold elevation in response to a first determination of a comparison of at least one of the one or more parameters with one or more threshold values”, “at least in part” suggests that the claims include within their scope making the tunnel exit determination based entirely on the determination of elevation above a threshold in response to the comparison of one or more parameters with one or more threshold values, with no consideration for the lines of sight in lines 9-12.
Examiner notes that the amended claim limitations appear to be drawn from Fig. 9. Fig. 9 steps 940 and 950 determine that at least one satellite elevation is above a threshold, and these steps are performed in response to comparing parameters to a threshold value at 920 and 930.
There is no explicit determining that one or more parameters indicate line of sight in Fig. 9. However, in the “Brief Description of the Drawings” section, para. [0010] “FIG. 5 illustrates a flow diagram of an example method for implementing a tunnel exit prediction process for determining whether parameter(s) based on signals received by the user equipment indicates a line of sight between the user equipment and the satellite vehicles” and para. [0014] “FIG. 9 illustrates a flow diagram of a fourth example implementation of the method of FIG. 5” indicate that Fig. 9 is an implementation of “an example method for implementing a tunnel exit prediction process for determining whether parameter(s) based on signals received by the user equipment indicates a line of sight between the user equipment and the satellite vehicles” (emphasis added).
Amending claim 1 line 11 to read “wherein determining the line of sight is based at least in part...” may help to clarify the claims, as paras. [0010], [0014], and Fig. 9 appear to indicate that lines 11-15 provide further detail of the line of sight determination in lines 9-11. As currently written, lines 11-15 appear to recite elements that are distinct from the line of sight determination in lines 9-11.
The remaining claims are dependent.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, 21, 22, 24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capozio (US 8125380 B2) in view of Matsuoka (JP H08313281 A).
Regarding claim 1, Capozio, as best understood, teaches [NOTE: limitations not taught by Capozio are lined through; language added by amendment is underlined] a method for determining a tunnel exit of a user equipment, comprising:
determining a tunnel entry of the user equipment (305 or 306 or 311, Fig. 4 “visibility_status = TUNNEL_IN”);
receiving one or more signals, by the user equipment, from one or more satellite vehicles (302, Fig. 4 as per 6:49 – 7:3 and Table 1, where the number of visible satellites is inherently determined based on signals received);
determining that one or more parameters based on the one or more signals received by the user equipment indicate a line of sight between the user equipment and at least one of the one or more satellite vehicles (302, Fig. 4 in view of 6:49-7:3 where “sky_condition” is determined either as “Obstructed_Sky or “Visible_Sky” based on number of visible satellites and corresponding measured powers, with “Visible_Sky” implicitly indicating line of sight; also see conditions determined according to Table 1, where at least “Good_Sky” and “Sufficient_Sky” implicitly indicate line of sight); and
determining the tunnel exit of the user equipment (306 or 312, Fig. 4 “OUT_OF_TUNNEL”) in response to determining that the one or more parameters indicate line of sight between the user equipment and the at least one of the one or more satellite vehicles (306 and 312 occur in response to the determination of line of sight at 302)in response to a first determination of a comparison of at least one of the one or more parameters with one or more threshold values (see comparison of measured powers CN0i to thresholds in Table 1 to determine if Good_Sky or Sufficient _Sky conditions are met).
Capozio further teaches that tunnel exit can be determined by combining two features of received satellite signals – see claim 10:
PNG
media_image1.png
176
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Further, Capozio’s Table 1 teaches the combining may be performed according to logical AND/OR operations. One of ordinary skill would recognize that such combining would improve the reliability of the tunnel exit determination.
However, as indicated by the lined through language above, Capozio does not teach “wherein determining the tunnel exit is based at least in part on a second determination that the at least one of the one or more satellite vehicles has an elevation above a threshold elevation in response to a first determination of a comparison of at least one of the one or more parameters with one or more threshold values”.
Matsuoka, in analogous art, teaches determining tunnel exit by comparing the elevations of one or more captured satellite vehicles to an elevation threshold value and determining tunnel exit based on at least one of the one or more satellite vehicles having an elevation above a threshold elevation (para. [0031], with emphasis added “FIG. 4 shows how the vehicle escapes from the tunnel. As shown in FIG. 4, it is assumed that the previous position is point G and the relative position obtained by the current position determination unit 13 is point H, and the GPS check unit 14 captures only GPS satellites having a low elevation angle at point G. However, when at least one high-elevation GPS satellite is captured at point H, the position determination unit 13 determines that the vehicle has escaped from the position where the shielding object exists to the position where the shielding object does not exist.”).
It would have been obvious to modify Capozio by determining tunnel exit based on a combination of Capozio’s one or more parameter indicating line of sight and Matsuoka’s elevations, in a manner analogous to what is taught in Capozio’s claim 10 and Table 1, in order to provide the predictable result of improving the reliability of the tunnel exit determination. This is a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Regarding making the second determination in response to the first determination, the determinations are necessarily made 1) simultaneously, or 2) sequentially, and in the case of 2) sequentially, one of the decisions is made first, and the other second, i.e. the second is “in response to” the first. Any of these would have reasonably expectation of success and therefore would have been at least obvious to try. This is a matter of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Regarding claims 8, 15, and 22, in addition to what has already been discussed with respect to claim 1, Capozio teaches an implementation with memory and processor at 2:55-62.
Regarding claims 3, 10, 17, and 24, Capozio teaches wherein the one or more parameters is selected from a group consisting of: measurement errors for each of the one or more signals; and received signal strength of each of the one or more signals from the one or more satellite vehicles (Table 1 CNOi, where 6:67 “CN0j represents the measured power” meets the claimed signal strengths).
Regarding claims 7, 14, 21, and 28, it would have been obvious to determine that Capozio’s received signal strengths exceed a threshold for satellites having elevations above Mastuoka’s elevation threshold, and determining tunnel exit based thereon, in order to provide the predictable result of confirming that said satellites provide line of sight signals, thereby improving the determination of tunnel exit by combining the signal strength and elevation indications of line of sight in a manner analogous to what is taught in Capozio’s claim 10 and Table 1. This modification would be a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Claims 4, 6, 11, 13, 18, 20, 25, 27, and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capozio (US 8125380 B2) in view of Matsuoka (JP H08313281 A) as applied to claims 3, 10, 17, and 24 above, and further in view of [Vacher (US 8355867 B2) or Endo (US 20020161523 A1)].
Regarding claims 4, 11, 18, and 25, Capozio does not teach wherein the determining of tunnel exit comprises: calculating the measurement error for each of the one or more signals;
determining that the measurement error, for the signal corresponding to the at least one of the one or more satellite vehicles that has an elevation above the threshold elevation, does not exceed an error threshold value; and
determining the tunnel exit based on the measurement error, for the signal corresponding to the at least one of the one or more satellite vehicles that has an elevation above the threshold elevation, not exceeding the error threshold value.
Determining satellite line of sight based on errors that do not exceed a threshold is well-known in the prior art – for example, see Endo para. [0106] and Vacher 2:27-54 and Fig. 2.
It would have been obvious to further modify Capozio in view of Endo or Vacher by determining the measurement errors for each of the satellite signals in order to provide the predictable result of obtaining additional information regarding line of sight signals. It would have been further obvious to determine the tunnel exit based on the measurement error not exceeding the threshold for signals corresponding to satellite vehicles that have elevation above the threshold elevation in order to provide the predictable result of confirming that said satellite vehicles provide line of sight signals, thereby improving the reliability of the tunnel exit in a manner analogous to what is taught in Capozio’s claim 10 and Table 1 as discussed above with respect to claims 7, 14, 21, and 28. These modifications would be a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Regarding claims 6, 13, 20, and 27, it would have been obvious to determine that Capozio’s received signal strengths exceed a threshold for satellites having elevations above Mastuoka’s elevation threshold, and determining tunnel exit based thereon, in order to provide the predictable result of confirming that said satellite vehicles provide line of sight signals, thereby improving the reliability of the tunnel exit determination in a manner analogous to what is taught in Capozio’s claim 10 and Table 1 as discussed above with respect to claims 7, 14, 21, and 28. This modification would be a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of an improved determination of tunnel exit, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Regarding claims 29-32, it would have been obvious to determine tunnel exit when the measurement error for none of the one or more signals exceeds the error threshold and the signal strength of each of the one or more signals exceeds the signal strength threshold in order to achieve the predictable result of improving the reliability of the tunnel exit determination in a manner analogous to what is taught in Capozio’s claim 10. This would be a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, an exemplary rationale that supports a conclusion of obviousness, see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSI J GALT whose telephone number is (571)270-1469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, WILLIAM KELLEHER can be reached at (571)272-7753. 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.
/CASSI J GALT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights