Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the claims received on 3/2/2026.
Election without Traverse
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, formed by claims 1-5, in the reply filed on 3/2/2026, is acknowledged. Claims 6-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/2/2026.
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.
Joint Inventors, Common Ownership Presumed
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
Test for Obviousness
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 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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, 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al (publication number 2025/0330857), hereinafter Yao, and further in view of Medeiros et al (publication number 2024/0283571), hereinafter Medeiros.
Regarding claim 1, Yao teaches a user equipment (UE, please refer to Yao [0033] FIG. 1: UE 101 in wireless network 100) for wireless communication, comprising:
one or more memories (Yao Fig. 11 and [0125]: memory 1118); and
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (Yao Fig. 11 and [0124]: application circuitry 1102 includes one or more application processors), configured to:
receive a trigger indicating that the UE is to perform a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) acquisition process within a GNSS measurement gap (Yao Fig. 8 and [0112] At Step 830, the network device transmits a second GNSS measurement parameter including a second GNSS measurement gap to the UE. [0113] At Step 840, the network device transmits a trigger for a GNSS measurement to the UE.),
wherein a start time of the GNSS measurement gap is based at least in part on measurement parameters (Yao [0056] FIG. 3 is a diagram of determining the starting time of the GNSS measurement gap based on the GNSS measurement parameters received from the network device) received in a channel in which the trigger is received (Yao Fig. 8 and [0112] Step 830: the network device transmits a second GNSS measurement parameter including a second GNSS measurement gap to the UE. [0113] Step 840: the network device transmits a trigger for a GNSS measurement to the UE. It would have been obvious for the network to use the same channel for transmitting two consecutive messages to the UE in Fig. 8 steps 830 and 840, since Yao doesn't state that the network changes the channel from step 830 to step 840. Therefore, Yao determines a start time of the GNSS measurement gap based on the measurement parameters received by the UE in the same channel in which the UE has received the trigger); and
perform the GNSS acquisition process within the GNSS measurement gap (Yao [0079] In FIG. 6A, the UE performs the GNSS measurement within the GNSS measurement gap 2 in the GNSS measurement periodicity 2 for acquiring a valid GNSS new position fix) based at least in part on the trigger (Yao Fig. 8 and [0114] At Step 850, the UE performs the GNSS measurement based on the received second GNSS measurement parameter, for acquiring a valid GNSS new position fix – in Fig. 8, step 850 is subsequent to step 840, therefore, based on step 840).
Yao does not explicitly teach "whether hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback is enabled".
Medeiros teaches: wherein a start time of the GNSS measurement gap (Medeiros [0031] “Synch measurement gap” is the same as “GNSS measurement gap”) is based at least in part on whether hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback is enabled (Medeiros Fig. 5 and [0081] The Synch Measurement Gap 506 assigned by the MAC-CE will happen starting after a Gap Scheduling delay 507 at UL slot n+X with X>K. The reason is that the UE is not able to transmit the HARQ feedback during the Synch Measurement Gap 506 and therefore the UE has to transmit before the measurement gap 506 is started, i.e. X>K – i.e., a start time of Medeiros' measurement gap is based on the fact that HARQ is disabled in the UE which is not able to transmit HARQ) for a channel in which the trigger is received (Medeiros Fig. 5 and [0080] The scheduled MAC-CE is received at downlink slot n (HARQ feedback delay 505) scheduling the Synch Measurement Gap (action 503) – Medeiros' action 503 equates to claimed "trigger" because a measurement gap 506 begins based on the trigger. Alternatively, claimed "trigger" may also equate to action 502 described in [0080]. Medeiros describes Fig. 5 in [0079]- [0094] where there is no mention of changing from one channel to another).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Yao, by incorporating the teachings of Medeiros into the disclosure of Yao, because it is desirable to enhance the GNSS operation by enabling the UE to perform GNSS measurements while remaining RRC Connected (Medeiros [0005], [0008]).
Regarding claim 2, Yao does not explicitly teach "wherein the start time of the GNSS measurement gap is a particular amount of time after a transmission of a HARQ acknowledgment associated with the trigger based on HARQ feedback being enabled for the channel in which the trigger is received".
Medeiros teaches: wherein the start time of the GNSS measurement gap is a particular amount of time after a transmission of a HARQ acknowledgment (Medeiros Fig. 5 and [0082] The UE sends ACK in action 503 – Medeiros' GNSS measurement gap takes place after action 503 as claimed) associated with the trigger based on HARQ feedback being enabled for the channel in which the trigger is received (Medeiros Fig. 5 and [0080] The scheduled MAC-CE is received at downlink slot n (HARQ feedback delay 505) scheduling the Synch Measurement Gap (action 503) – Medeiros' action 503 equates to claimed "trigger" because a measurement gap 506 begins based on the trigger. HARQ feedback is enabled because there are a first ACK in 504 and a second ACK in 509).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Yao, by incorporating the teachings of Medeiros into the disclosure of Yao, because it is desirable to enhance the GNSS operation by enabling the UE to perform GNSS measurements while remaining RRC Connected (Medeiros [0005], [0008]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao, in view of Medeiros, and further in view of Sedin et al (publication number WO2023152302), hereinafter Sedin.
Regarding claim 4, Yao teaches wherein the one or more processors, to perform the GNSS acquisition process, are configured to perform the GNSS acquisition process based at least in part on a GNSS validity duration (Yao [0047] validity duration of the GNSS position fix for the UE).
Yao as modified does not explicitly teach "to perform the GNSS acquisition process based at least in part on a determination that a remaining GNSS validity duration fails to satisfy a threshold".
Sedin teaches wherein the one or more processors, to perform the GNSS acquisition process, are configured to perform the GNSS acquisition process based at least in part on a determination that a remaining GNSS validity duration fails to satisfy a threshold (Sedin Fig. 5 and page 18 line 15 – page 19 line 3: If the UE, after having indicated to the UE that its remaining GNSS measurement validity time is below the required minimum remaining validity time (e.g., below the configured or specified threshold), and optionally also indicated the actual remaining GNSS measurement validity time, manages to acquire a fresh GNSS measurement, the UE can indicate this to the network (e.g., in a MAC CE or in an RRC message) and optionally also indicate how long the GNSS measurement validity time is).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Yao as modified, by incorporating the teachings of Sedin into the disclosure of Yao as modified, in order to proactively update the geo-positioning fix, advantageously reducing the chances that the communication device will have to address geo-positioning fix invalidity during the course of the device’s connection to a non-terrestrial network, thereby improving system performance (Sedin page 2 lines 5 - 15).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao, and further in view of He et al (publication number 2022/0377748), hereinafter He.
Regarding claim 1, Yao teaches a user equipment (UE, please refer to Yao [0033] FIG. 1: UE 101 in wireless network 100) for wireless communication, comprising:
one or more memories (Yao Fig. 11 and [0125]: memory 1118); and
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (Yao Fig. 11 and [0124]: application circuitry 1102 includes one or more application processors), configured to:
receive a trigger indicating that the UE is to perform a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) acquisition process within a GNSS measurement gap (Yao Fig. 8 and [0112] At Step 830, the network device transmits a second GNSS measurement parameter including a second GNSS measurement gap to the UE. [0113] At Step 840, the network device transmits a trigger for a GNSS measurement to the UE.),
wherein a start time of the GNSS measurement gap is based at least in part on measurement parameters (Yao [0056] FIG. 3 is a diagram of determining the starting time of the GNSS measurement gap based on the GNSS measurement parameters received from the network device) received in a channel in which the trigger is received (Yao Fig. 8 and [0112] Step 830: the network device transmits a second GNSS measurement parameter including a second GNSS measurement gap to the UE. [0113] Step 840: the network device transmits a trigger for a GNSS measurement to the UE. It would have been obvious for the network to use the same channel for transmitting two consecutive messages to the UE in Fig. 8 steps 830 and 840, since Yao doesn't state that the network changes the channel from step 830 to step 840. Therefore, Yao determines a start time of the GNSS measurement gap based on the measurement parameters received by the UE in the same channel in which the UE has received the trigger); and
perform the GNSS acquisition process within the GNSS measurement gap (Yao [0079] In FIG. 6A, the UE performs the GNSS measurement within the GNSS measurement gap 2 in the GNSS measurement periodicity 2 for acquiring a valid GNSS new position fix) based at least in part on the trigger (Yao Fig. 8 and [0114] At Step 850, the UE performs the GNSS measurement based on the received second GNSS measurement parameter, for acquiring a valid GNSS new position fix – in Fig. 8, step 850 is subsequent to step 840, therefore, based on step 840).
Yao does not explicitly teach "whether hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback is enabled".
He teaches: wherein a start time of a time window is based at least in part on whether hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback is enabled (He [0045] [0058] [0095] The Tx UE 104 determines a first resource reselection window 208 that is configured to start at m+P1 slots, where m is a slot of the last selected resource (m=m1 in this embodiment) and a number of slots in P1 is chosen based on whether hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback is enabled or not. P1 is equal to 1 when HARQ feedback is disabled. P1 is derived based on one or more of a HARQ feedback time, a physical sidelink feedback channel (PSFCH) periodicity and a processing time associated with a physical sidelink control channel (PSCCH) or a physical sidelink shared channel (PSSCH), when HARQ feedback is enabled) for a channel in which the trigger is received (He Fig. 1 and [0038] Sidelink channel 108, alternately referred to as the sidelink 108. See also [0048] First transmission signal 110 sent over the sidelink 108. [0085] Pre-emption message 112 sent over the same sidelink channel 108, suggesting that HARQ can be enabled or disabled for the same channel where all the other signals are being transmitted or received. [0051] Reselection of the subsequent resources is triggered at the Tx UE 104 when NACK is received on PSFCH – therefore, He's "trigger" is received on the sidelink channel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Yao, by incorporating the teachings of He into the disclosure of Yao, in order to achieve high reliability of packet delivery within a predefined target communication range, and typically require very low latency packet delivery (He par. 2).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao, in view of He, in view of Sedin.
Regarding claim 4, Yao teaches wherein the one or more processors, to perform the GNSS acquisition process, are configured to perform the GNSS acquisition process based at least in part on a GNSS validity duration (Yao [0047] validity duration of the GNSS position fix for the UE).
Yao as modified does not explicitly teach "to perform the GNSS acquisition process based at least in part on a determination that a remaining GNSS validity duration fails to satisfy a threshold".
Sedin teaches wherein the one or more processors, to perform the GNSS acquisition process, are configured to perform the GNSS acquisition process based at least in part on a determination that a remaining GNSS validity duration fails to satisfy a threshold (Sedin Fig. 5 and page 18 line 15 – page 19 line 3: If the UE, after having indicated to the UE that its remaining GNSS measurement validity time is below the required minimum remaining validity time (e.g., below the configured or specified threshold), and optionally also indicated the actual remaining GNSS measurement validity time, manages to acquire a fresh GNSS measurement, the UE can indicate this to the network (e.g., in a MAC CE or in an RRC message) and optionally also indicate how long the GNSS measurement validity time is).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Yao as modified, by incorporating the teachings of Sedin into the disclosure of Yao as modified, in order to proactively update the geo-positioning fix, advantageously reducing the chances that the communication device will have to address geo-positioning fix invalidity during the course of the device’s connection to a non-terrestrial network, thereby improving system performance (Sedin page 2 lines 5 - 15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5 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.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant’s reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, He teaches in [0045] wherein the start time of the GNSS measurement gap is a particular amount of time after a slot of the last selected resource. However, He and Yao fall short of a particular amount of time after an end of reception of the channel in which the trigger is received based on HARQ feedback being disabled for the channel in which the trigger is received.
Regarding claim 5, Yao teaches in Fig. 8 and [0114] a UE performing the GNSS acquisition process with a successful result. He, Yao, and Medeiros fall short of teaching a failure to reacquire GNSS within the GNSS measurement gap, or a failure recovery process.
Therefore, in view of their respective base claims, the further limitations of the above-mentioned claims in combination with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD EISNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3334. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Tuesday from 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kathy Wang-Hurst, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-5371. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats see MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/RONALD EISNER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights