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 OFFICE ACTION
This action is responsive to the communication received July 24th, 2026. Claims 1-20 have been entered and are presented for examination.
Priority
Application 18/604,962 is a CON of PCT/KR2024/003161 03/12/2024 and claims benefit to Korean Applications 10-2023-0033449 03/14/2023 and 10-2023-0046271 04/07/2023.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “Neither Park nor Katagiri discloses UE-side latitude-based transmission power control.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s claim does not recite a UE-side latitude-based transmission power control. Applicant is respectfully reminded although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues “Page 11 of the OA suggests that "latitude travel of the satellite" is taught by Katagiri's the orbiting satellite's elevation angle. Applicant disagrees. Latitude is not equivalent to elevation angle as explained above and is also not equivalent to satellite distance because the relationship between latitude and satellite distance is not one-to-one. The specification explains with reference to FIGS. 5A and 5B, at higher latitudes the range of distances to nearby satellites is reduced because the orbital geometry brings them overhead. However, at any given moment, the distance to a specific satellite depends on both the UE's latitude and the satellite's current position along its orbit. Latitude constrains the distribution of possible distances but does not uniquely determine the instantaneous distance. That is why Katagiri uses elevation angle as an instantaneous geometric measure of the satellite's current angular position in the sky.
Thus, Katagiri further lacks "set a transmission power of a transmission signal
corresponding to satellite communication to a third power based on identifying that the latitude corresponding to the position of the electronic device is within the first range" and "set the transmission power of a transmission signal corresponding to satellite communication to a power lower than the third power based on identifying that the latitude corresponding to the position of the electronic device is not within the first range."”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Park et al. discloses the UE may estimate the location of the NTN (or the platform related to the NTN) based on the satellite orbit information, and may determine one power control setting (or first power control setting) corresponding to the location of the estimated NTN among the plurality of power control settings (paragraph 0305).
Below is Katagiri’s Figure 1 and Figure 2 rotated 90 degrees for ease of explanation.
PNG
media_image1.png
332
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Looking at both figures, the satellite is traveling longitudinally and showing different latitudes and distances relative the ground device. In this case further away, to directly over, to further away. The elevation angle refers to the different latitudes along the longitudinal path.
Katagiri further discloses when the ground station is directly below the orbiting satellite, the distance is minimum; when the ground station is directly below the orbiting satellite, not much transmission power is required; There is a step of controlling the transmission power to be maximum at the maximum and to reduce the transmission power as the distance becomes short (paragraphs 0007, 0012).
The modification Katagiri into the system of Park et al. would allow the UE to control the transmission power based on the estimated location of the NTN. The motivation for this is to enable to the UE to control the transmit power based on the configuration received.
The rejection of claims 7-12 is respectfully maintained.
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 non-obviousness.
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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) 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 as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2024/0031939) in view of Katagiri (JP 2001308767).
Regarding claim 7, Park et al. discloses an electronic device (see Figure 21 and paragraphs 0331-0333 [wireless device]) comprising: memory storing instructions (see Figure 21 [Memory 104]); and at least one processor (see Figure 21 [Processor 102]), comprising processing circuitry , wherein the instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to: identify a position of the electronic device from a GPS signal based on identifying a first event (paragraphs 0273, 0305 [power control settings based on the location of the estimated NTN (or the platform related to the NTN) and/or the location of the UE (acquired according to a GNSS or the like); the UE may receive configuration information related to an NTN]).
Park et al. does not explicitly disclose identify whether a latitude corresponding to the position of the electronic device is within a first range; set a transmission power of a transmission signal corresponding to satellite communication to a third power based on identifying that the latitude corresponding to the position of the electronic device is within the first range; and set the transmission power of a transmission signal corresponding to satellite communication to a power lower than the third power based on identifying that the latitude corresponding to the position of the electronic device is not within the first range.
However, Katagiri discloses identify whether a latitude corresponding to the position of the electronic device is within a first range (see Figures 1-2 and paragraph 0021 [As shown in FIG. 2, the orbiting satellite 1 of the present invention orbits a plurality of orbits at predetermined intervals in orbit, and a plurality of orbiting orbits exist on the earth. And, as shown in FIG. 3, the orbiting satellite 1 has an elevation angle within a range where the elevation angle is not less than the minimum elevation angle θ.; latitude travel of the satellite]); set a transmission power of a transmission signal corresponding to satellite communication to a third power based on identifying that the latitude corresponding to the position of the electronic device is within the first range (paragraphs 0007, 0012 [when the ground station is directly below the orbiting satellite, the distance is minimum; when the ground station is directly below the orbiting satellite, not much transmission power is required; There is a step of controlling the transmission power to be maximum at the maximum and to reduce the transmission power as the distance becomes short]); and set the transmission power of a transmission signal corresponding to satellite communication to a power lower than the third power based on identifying that the latitude corresponding to the position of the electronic device is not within the first range (paragraphs 0007, 0012 [when the ground station is directly below the orbiting satellite, the distance is minimum; when the ground station is directly below the orbiting satellite, not much transmission power is required; There is a step of controlling the transmission power to be maximum at the maximum and to reduce the transmission power as the distance becomes short]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize the UE could reduce or increase the transmission power to the satellite based on distance and the elevation angle in order to communicate.
Regarding claim 8, the references as combined above disclose all the recited subject matter in claim 7.
However, Katagiri further discloses wherein the instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to: set the transmission power to the third power based on identifying the latitude corresponding to the position of the electronic device being within the first range (see Figures 1-2 and paragraphs 0007, 0012 [There is a step of controlling the transmission power to be maximum at the maximum and to reduce the transmission power as the distance becomes short; when the elevation angle for viewing the orbiting satellite from the ground station is the lowest elevation angle at which communication is possible, the distance between the ground station and the orbiting satellite is maximum]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize the UE could reduce or increase the transmission power to the satellite based on distance and the elevation angle in order to communicate.
Regarding claim 9, the references as combined above disclose all the recited subject matter in claim 7.
However, Katagiri further suggests wherein the instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to: as at least part of setting the transmission power to the power lower than the third power is based on identifying that the latitude corresponding to the position of the electronic device is not within the first range (see Figures 1-2 and paragraphs 0007, 0012 [the transmission control section controls the transmission power so as to be proportional to the square of the distance]), identify whether the latitude corresponding to the position of the electronic device is within a second range (see Figures 1-2 and paragraphs 0007, 0012 [the transmission control section controls the transmission power so as to be proportional to the square of the distance]); and set the transmission power of the transmission signal corresponding to the satellite communication to a first power lower than the third power based on identifying the latitude corresponding to the position of the electronic device being within the second range (see Figures 1-2 and paragraphs 0007, 0012 [the transmission control section controls the transmission power so as to be proportional to the square of the distance; suggesting a distance that is between maximum and minimum with a corresponding (proportional) transmission power]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize the UE could reduce or increase the transmission power to the satellite based on distance and the elevation angle in order to communicate.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2024/0031939) in view of Katagiri (JP 2001308767) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Wilhelmsson et al. (US 2024/0147387).
Regarding claim 10, the references as combined above disclose all the recited subject matter in claim 7, but do not explicitly disclose identifying whether the transmission succeeds after transmitting the transmission signal with the first power; and setting the transmission power of the transmission signal corresponding to the satellite communication to the third power based on identifying a failure of the transmission.
However, Wilhelmsson et al. discloses identifying whether the transmission succeeds after transmitting the transmission signal with the first power (paragraphs 0062, 0101 [failure, increase transmission power by a step]); and setting the third power to the transmission power of the transmission signal corresponding to the satellite communication based on identifying a failure of the transmission (paragraphs 0062, 0101 [failure, increase transmission power by a step]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize a higher power transmission could be used when an initial transmission is not received. The motivation is to transmit such that the receiver can receive the signal.
Regarding claim 11, the references as combined above disclose all the recited subject matter in claim 10.
However, Katagiri further suggests wherein the instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to: set the transmission power to a second power lower than the first power based on identifying that the latitude corresponding to the position of the electronic device is not within the second range (see Figures 1-2 and paragraphs 0007, 0012 [There is a step of controlling the transmission power to be maximum at the maximum and to reduce the transmission power as the distance becomes short; when the elevation angle for viewing the orbiting satellite from the ground station is the lowest elevation angle at which communication is possible, the distance between the ground station and the orbiting satellite is maximum]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize the UE could reduce or increase the transmission power to the satellite based on distance and the elevation angle in order to communicate.
Regarding claim 12, the references as combined above disclose all the recited subject matter in claim 11, but do not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to: identify whether the transmission succeeds after transmitting the transmission signal with the second power; and set the transmission power of the transmission signal corresponding to the satellite communication to the first power based on identifying the failure of the transmission.
However, Wilhelmsson et al. discloses wherein the instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, cause the electronic device to: identify whether the transmission succeeds after transmitting the transmission signal with the second power (paragraphs 0003 [the network responds with a confirmation of this successful reception]); and set the transmission power of the transmission signal corresponding to the satellite communication to the first power based on identifying the failure of the transmission (paragraph 0098 [The set of power levels can be directly signaled as a set of levels (e.g., TX_pow1, TX_pow2, TX_pow3, . . . ). In a non-limiting alternative embodiment, the power levels are signaled as a minimum and a maximum transmit (or target receive) power level along with a step size to be used for generating a set of power levels spanning the minimum and maximum values]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize a higher power transmission could be used when an initial transmission is not received. The motivation is to transmit such that the receiver can receive the signal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 13-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not disclose or make obvious:
set the transmission power of the transmission signal corresponding to the satellite communication based on a time period to which a current time belongs and a mapping table indicating a transmission power to be set for each of a plurality of time periods.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE whose telephone number is (571)270-3937. The examiner can normally be reached 4pm-11:30pm.
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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at (571) 270-0422. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2429
Prosecution Insights