DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Introduction
This is a response to the applicant’s response filed on 01/20/2026. Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 11, 13, 16-17 and 20 are currently presented in the instant application. Claims 2, 4-5, 9-10, 12, 14-15 and 18-19 are canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/21/2023, 11/13/2024 and 06/16/2025 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Drawings
The drawing submitted on 12/21/2023 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Specification
The specification submitted on 12/21/2023 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of group I, 1, 3, 6, 11, 13 and 20 in the reply filed on 01/20/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims recite an embodiment of the applicants' invention directed towards " the computer-readable storage medium may be a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” as recites in claim 20. It is noted, however, the specification (page 23, PAR [00153]) provides open-ended examples of storage medium may be “A non- transitory storage medium" Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, "Storage medium" considered as a whole would be directed towards non-statutory mediums such as signals/carrier waves. The specification fails to define A storage medium excludes a signals/carrier waves, such as transitory signal as per the USPTO notice signed by David Kapposon 1/26/2010: "The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319(Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a storage medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable storage medium, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C.j101, Aug. 24,2009; p. 2."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-8, 11, 13, 16-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derbez et al. (US Pub. No.: 2012/0256790, hereinafter, “Derbez”) in view of INGALE et al. (US Pub. No.: 2020/0305222, Hereinafter, “Ingale”).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Derber teaches a terminal and a validity period determining method (see figures 1-3, plurality of client devices), comprising:
receivinq, by a terminal, a validity period of ephemeris information configured by a network device (see figures 2-3, [0012-0014, 0029, 0035], claim 1, it is clearly seen that the server applied the time of ephemeris parameter such as a validity period of ephemeris information as requested by the client device and transmit the configuration to the client device), wherein the validity period meets a synchronization requirement of the terminal (see figure 3, [0035], the server transmit the configuration of the validity period to the client device base on the request from the client device. It is clearly seen that the sever meets a synchronization requirement of the terminal) and a time unit of the validity period is second (see [0012, 0022], 30 minutes =1800 seconds).
It should be noticed that Derber fails to teach terminal comprises one or more processors; and one or more transceivers connected to the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to load and execute executable instructions and the validity period is carried in at least one of a cell-specific Radio Resource Control (RRC) messaqe or a user equipment- specific RRC messaqe. However, Ingale teaches terminal comprises one or more processors; and one or more transceivers connected to the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to load and execute executable instructions and the validity period is carried in at least one of a cell-specific Radio Resource Control (RRC) messaqe or a user equipment- specific RRC messaqe (see figures 2, 8E & 9, [0035, 0079], mobile 108A, validity timer 806).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ingale into view of Derber in order to enable seamless mobility, ensuring reliable connectivity, and facilitating enhanced data throughput by coordinating multiple connections.
Regarding claim 7, Derber teaches a validity period determining method (see figures 1-3, plurality of client devices), comprising:
configuring, by a network device, a validity period of ephemeris information for a terminal, (see figures 2-3, [0012-0014, 0029, 0035], claim 1, it is clearly seen that the server applied the time of ephemeris parameter such as a validity period of ephemeris information as requested by the client device and transmit the configuration to the client device), wherein the validity period meets a synchronization requirement of the terminal (see figure 3, [0035], the server transmit the configuration of the validity period to the client device base on the request from the client device. It is clearly seen that the sever meets a synchronization requirement of the terminal) and a time unit of the validity period is second (see [0012, 0022], 30 minutes =1800 seconds).
It should be noticed that Derber fails to teach terminal comprises one or more processors; and one or more transceivers connected to the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to load and execute executable instructions and the validity period is carried in at least one of a cell-specific Radio Resource Control (RRC) messaqe or a user equipment- specific RRC messaqe. However, Ingale teaches terminal comprises one or more processors; and one or more transceivers connected to the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to load and execute executable instructions and the validity period is carried in at least one of a cell-specific Radio Resource Control (RRC) messaqe or a user equipment- specific RRC messaqe (see figures 2, 8E & 9, [0035, 0079], mobile 108A, validity timer 806).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ingale into view of Derber in order to enable seamless mobility, ensuring reliable connectivity, and facilitating enhanced data throughput by coordinating multiple connections.
Regarding claims 3, 8 and 17, Derber further teaches the validity period is configured by the network device based on a satellite scenario, the satellite scenario comprising Medium- Earth Orbit (MEO) (see GPS satellite is MEO).
Regarding claim 6, Derber further teaches expecting, by the terminal when the validity period is exceeded, the network device to update the ephemeris information (see [0024, 0035], beyond 30 mins).
Regarding claims 16 and 20, Derber further teaches a network device, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more transceivers connected to the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to load and execute executable instructions, so as to perform the validity period determining method according to claim 7 (see [0028-0029]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan A. Pham whose telephone number is (571) 272-8097, the fax number is (571) 273-8097 and the email is tuan.pham01@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached on (571) 272-7855. 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.
/TUAN PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649