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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to the application filed on 01/15/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application, with claims 1,12 and 20 being independent.
Attorney Information Request
For efficient and faster prosecution of the current application, please provide direct phone number and email address of an attorney filing a response to this office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 6, “modify a communication signal” should read “modify a communication signal using estimated TA drift rate”
In claim 3, line 2, “modifying of the communication signal” should read “modifying of the received communication signal”
In claim 4, line 1, “. . the instructions and the data . .” should read “. . the instructions and the data when executed by the one or more processors . .”
Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group 1: claims 1-11 and 12-19 drawn to a method and an apparatus for estimating a TA drift rate using ephemeris of a satellite and a location of a UE and modifying a signal sent from the UE to NTN node using the TA drift rate.
Group 2: claim 20 drawn to a system, a NTN node and a UE for modifying a signal sent from the UE to NTN node using a compensation method for correcting a TA drift, the compensation method uses a location and a relative angle of elevation between the UE and the NTN node.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature of using relative angle of elevation between the UE and the NTN node to estimate a TA drift and to apply correction to a signal sent from the UE.
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 1-11 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claims are not clearly written to define metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
In claim 1, the limitations “estimate” or “modify” are unclear as to it is not providing enough information about which entity performs the recited functions. Just using an apparatus makes the claim very unclear to properly search the claimed invention.
Claims 2-11 are rejected based upon claim dependency to independent claim 1.
In claim 3, the limitation “the NTN node performs the modifying” is unclear as the signal from the UE to NTN node is being modified as per the base claim and there is not enough information on how NTN node is modifying a signal before sent from the UE.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Maattanen et al. (US 2022/0408384 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Maattanen”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 12-13, Maattanen discloses an apparatus and a method to: estimate a timing advance (TA) drift rate (Maattanen Fig.7,8 Para[0141] A timing drift and frequency shift is determined (i.e. estimated)); and modify a communication signal from a user equipment (UE) (Maattanen Fig.1 A UE) to a non-terrestrial network (NTN) node (Maattanen Fig.1 A base station or satellite (i.e. NTN node)) to correct for a phase error (The applicant is advised that it has been held that the recitation that an element is “to correct for a phase error” performing a function is not a positive limitation, but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138. Thus, limitation of “to correct for a phase error” is considered intended use.) caused by the TA drift rate (Maattanen Fig.7,8 Para[0141,0153] The determined timing drift or frequency shift is received from the network node and timing advance for uplink synchronization is adjusted (i.e. modified) or frequency offset (i.e. phase) for downlink is adjusted (i.e. modified)).
Specifically for claim 1, Maattanen discloses a the apparatus that includes a processor (Maattanen Fig.23 A processing circuit) and a memory (Maattanen Fig.23 A memory).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Maattanen discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Maattanen further discloses wherein the UE performs the modifying of the communication signal, and the modifying of the communication signal utilizes a pre-compensation transformation of the communication signal (Maattanen Fig.7,8 Para[0145,0155] The UE adjusts timing advance for uplink synchronization using preconfigured command set (i.e. pre-compensation transformation) or frequency offset (i.e. phase) for downlink using preconfigured command set (i.e. pre-compensation transformation)).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maattanen in view of Reuss et al. (US 11349559 Bl, hereinafter referred to as “Reuss”).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Maattanen discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Maattanen does not explicitly disclose wherein the NTN node performs the modifying of the communication signal, and the modifying of the communication signal utilizes a modification of a reference phase for a demodulation process.
However, Reuss from the same field of invention discloses wherein the NTN node performs the modifying of the communication signal, and the modifying of the communication signal utilizes a modification of a reference phase for a demodulation process (Reuss Fig.7B Col:8 Lines:34-50 A phase delta is used for adjusting the phase of the received signal).
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 Maattanen to have the feature of “wherein the NTN node performs the modifying of the communication signal, and the modifying of the communication signal utilizes a modification of a reference phase for a demodulation process” as taught by Reuss. The motivation would have been to accurately determine RTT (Reuss Col:1).
Claims 4-5,14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maattanen in view of Sendonaris et al. (US 2016/0109582 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Sendonaris”).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Maattanen discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Maattanen does not explicitly disclose request location information from the UE when the modification of an expected phase of the communication signal is applied at the NTN node or from the NTN node when the modification of the communication signal is applied at the UE.
However, Sendonaris from the same field of invention discloses request location information from the UE when the modification of an expected phase of the communication signal is applied at the NTN node or from the NTN node when the modification of the communication signal is applied at the UE (Sendonaris Fig.4,11 Para[0063] The UE location or satellite ephemeris assistance data is requested for determination).
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 Maattanen to have the feature of “request location information from the UE when the modification of an expected phase of the communication signal is applied at the NTN node or from the NTN node when the modification of the communication signal is applied at the UE” as taught by Sendonaris. The motivation would have been to improve location calculation capabilities (Sendonaris Para[0002]).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Maattanen discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Maattanen does not explicitly disclose wherein the NTN node is a satellite and the UE utilizes an ephemeris of the satellite and a location of the UE to estimate the TA drift rate.
However, Sendonaris from the same field of invention discloses wherein the NTN node is a satellite and the UE utilizes an ephemeris of the satellite and a location of the UE to estimate the TA drift rate (Sendonaris Fig.4,11 Para[0063] The UE location or satellite ephemeris assistance data is used for determination).
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 Maattanen to have the feature of “wherein the NTN node is a satellite and the UE utilizes an ephemeris of the satellite and a location of the UE to estimate the TA drift rate” as taught by Sendonaris. The motivation would have been to improve location calculation capabilities (Sendonaris Para[0002]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maattanen in view of Sendonaris and further in view of XU et al. (US 2024/0292468 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Xu”).
Regarding claim 6, Maattanen in view of Sendonaris discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Maattanen in view of Sendonaris does not explicitly disclose wherein a feeder link TA information is broadcast in a system information block (SIB) and the estimating of thee a TA drift rate utilizes the feeder link TA information.
However, Xu from the same field of invention discloses wherein a feeder link TA information is broadcast in a system information block (SIB) and the estimating of thee a TA drift rate utilizes the feeder link TA information (Xu Para[0060-64] The feeder link TA is broadcasted in a system information).
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 Maattanen and Sendonaris to have the feature of “wherein a feeder link TA information is broadcast in a system information block (SIB) and the estimating of thee a TA drift rate utilizes the feeder link TA information” as taught by Xu. The motivation would have been to efficiently compensate TA with large propagation delay (Xu Para[0005]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maattanen in view of Sun et al. (US 2024/0057002 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Sun”).
Regarding claim 7, Maattanen discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Maattanen does not explicitly disclose wherein the TA drift rate is a sum of a service link TA drift rate and a feeder link TA drift rate
However, Sun from the same field of invention discloses wherein the TA drift rate is a sum of a service link TA drift rate and a feeder link TA drift rate (Sun Para[0051] The uplink transmission time includes service link timing drift rate and the feeder link timing drift rate).
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 Maattanen to have the feature of “wherein the TA drift rate is a sum of a service link TA drift rate and a feeder link TA drift rate” as taught by Sun. The motivation would have been to adjust scheduling timing and enhance uplink and downlink transmission via a non-terrestrial equipment and between BS and UE (Sun Para[0022]).
Claims 8-10 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maattanen in view of Sony (R1-2105183, hereinafter referred to as “Sony”)-IDS.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Maattanen discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Maattanen does not explicitly disclose wherein the modifying of the communication signal is applied to a group of single-carrier frequency division multiple access (SC-FDMA) symbols.
However, Sony from the same field of invention discloses wherein the modifying of the communication signal is applied to a group of single-carrier frequency division multiple access (SC-FDMA) symbols (Sony Section:2.3 A time alignment for single subcarrier of SC-FDMA with number of symbols).
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 Maattanen to have the feature of “wherein the modifying of the communication signal is applied to a group of single-carrier frequency division multiple access (SC-FDMA) symbols” as taught by Sony. The motivation would have been for enhancements to time and frequency synchronization (Sony Tile).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Maattanen discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Maattanen does not explicitly disclose wherein the communication signal is of a longer duration than the group of SC-FDMA symbols and the modifying of the communication signal applies an accumulated phase error compensation over a duration of the communication signal (Sony Section:2.3 Timing advance for long PUSCH is applied and corrected over every 8ms (i.e. accumulated)).
However, Sony from the same field of invention discloses wherein the communication signal is of a longer duration than the group of SC-FDMA symbols and the modifying of the communication signal applies an accumulated phase error compensation over a duration of the communication signal.
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 Maattanen to have the feature of “wherein the communication signal is of a longer duration than the group of SC-FDMA symbols and the modifying of the communication signal applies an accumulated phase error compensation over a duration of the communication signal” as taught by Sony. The motivation would have been for enhancements to time and frequency synchronization (Sony Tile).
Regarding claim 10, Maattanen discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Maattanen does not explicitly disclose wherein the duration of the group of SC-FDMA symbols is one or more slots.
However, Sony from the same field of invention discloses wherein the duration of the group of SC-FDMA symbols is one or more slots (Sony Section:2.3 Multiple slots in a symbol).
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 Maattanen to have the feature of “wherein the duration of the group of SC-FDMA symbols is one or more slots” as taught by Sony. The motivation would have been for enhancements to time and frequency synchronization (Sony Tile).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maattanen in view of GRAU et al. (US 2024/0172156 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Grau”).
Regarding claim 11, Maattanen discloses the method and the apparatus as explained above for Claim 1. Maattanen does not explicitly disclose wherein the TA drift rate is less than a drift rate threshold, and an approximation of the TA drift rate is utilized in the modifying of the communication signal
However, Grau from the same field of invention discloses wherein the TA drift rate is less than a drift rate threshold, and an approximation of the TA drift rate is utilized in the modifying of the communication signal (Grau Fig.7 Para[0189] The UE updates TA for communication to the gNB when it is below the threshold).
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 Maattanen to have the feature of “wherein the TA drift rate is less than a drift rate threshold, and an approximation of the TA drift rate is utilized in the modifying of the communication signal” as taught by Grau. The motivation would have been to reduce signaling overhead in determining timing advance (Grau Para[0030]).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM ET.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415