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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment dated 2/4/26 is acknowledged cancelling claims 2-5, 9-14, and 19 and adding claims 21 and 22. Claims 1, 8, 21, and 22 are currently pending.
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.
Claim 21 is 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. Claim 21 is directed to a method performed by a network node, however its unclear how the method performed by the network node causes the step of “wherein the information is used by the UE to calculate a Doppler shift between the satellite and the UE” as the method is not performed on the UE. As such this limitation is considered intended use, does not hold patentable weight, and will be examined as such.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by Cheng et al. (USPGPUB 20230116580) (hereinafter Cheng) in view of Wu et al. (WO 2022/082757) (hereinafter Wu).
Regarding Claim 1, Cheng discloses a processing method performed by a user equipment (i.e. terminal 101), the processing method comprising:
receiving, via a telecommunications interface between user equipment and a satellite, information regarding a position and a velocity of a satellite from a base station (para 116: satellite ephemeris information which includes position and velocity)
calculating based on the information, a Doppler shift between the satellite and the UE (para 116: UE calculates the UL doppler frequency offset based on UE GNSS and satellite ephemeris); and
applying, to an uplink transmission signal, a Doppler shift correction based on the calculated Doppler shift (para 116: UE performs pre-compensation by sending the PRACH preamble on the frequency adjusted by the offset).
Cheng does not explicitly state that the UE and the satellite communicate via a Uu interface, or that the satellite ephemeris information is obtained from the satellite. In analogous art Wu discloses another NTN satellite communication system which transmits satellite ephemeris information from the satellite/base station (the Office interprets “base station” in light of the specification which discloses a satellite can be implemented as a base station, see para 106 of the instant specification) to the terminal (p. 25: “In a possible implementation manner, the ephemeris may be sent by the satellite to the terminal. For example, the satellite covering the terminal may send the ephemeris contained in the satellite to the terminal just before the terminal initiates random access, and the terminal may obtain the coverage time based on the ephemeris.” Also see p. 8 which discloses ephemeris information includes position and velocity/speed of the satellite; p. 13 “the satellite communicates with the UE through the NR Uu interface”). Cheng also discloses the satellite and UE communicate via a Uu interface (p. 13: “the satellite can be used as a base station…For example, the satellite communicates with the UE through the NR Uu interface”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine Cheng with Wu to implement a UU interface and have the ephemeris information transmitted from the satellite to the UE in order to provide an efficient method of communicating over a large area with minimal interruption by utilizing NTN satellites to connect UEs with the 5g core backend.
Claim 8 is rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above. Furthermore Cheng-Wu discloses transmitting ephemeris information which includes position and velocity and receiving an uplink transmission signal from the UE with the doppler shift correction having been applied (see Cheng, para 117). Furthermore in claims 22 the limitation “wherein the information is used by the UE to calculate a Doppler shift between the satellite and the UE” is considered non-patentable weight as the claim is a system claim directed to the network node, and the UE is not considered part of the claim as written.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 Joseph E Avellino whose telephone number is (571)272-3905. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am-3:00pm.
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. 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.
JOSEPH E. AVELLINO
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights