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 03/05/2024.
Claims 1-6 are pending in this application, with claims 1 and 6 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 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 5 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claim is not clearly written to define metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
In claim 5, the entire claim is not clear and the examiner is unable to interpret what is being claimed.
A prior art rejection has not been applied because the claim do not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired and are vague and indefinite (35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph). The claim is vague and indefinite such that no meaningful search can be performed at this time. However, any subsequently presented claim, in definite form will be subject to rejection on art. Due to the informal nature of the claim as noted above, an art rejection is not being applied at this time.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by HEYN et al. (US 2020/0196263 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Heyn”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, Heyn discloses a terminal (Heyn Fig.6) and a method comprising: perform communication with a base station (Heyn Fig.2 Para[0159] A base station) that is included in an NTN (Non-Terrestrial Network) via a non-terrestrial device (Heyn Fig.2 Para[0159] A Satellite) and a wireless relay device (Heyn Fig.2 Para[0159] A relay UE); and apply at least one of a first timing advance value or a second timing advance value to the communication (Heyn Fig.7,8 Para[0174,0192,0196] A relay UE provides predicted or adjusted values (i.e. first or second timing advance) to each UE), the first timing advance value corresponding to a section from the non-terrestrial device to the wireless relay device in a link from the non-terrestrial device to the terminal itself (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim), and the second timing advance value corresponding to a section from the wireless relay device to the terminal itself in the link from the non-terrestrial device to the terminal itself (Heyn Fig.7,8 Para[0123,0171] The relay device provides drift values using movement between relay and user device for timing adjustment to link between the relay and the UE).
Specifically for claim 1, Heyn discloses the terminal device that includes a processor (Heyn Para[0245] processor (i.e. control unit)) and a receiver (Heyn Para[0244] A receiver).
Regarding claim 2, Heyn discloses the terminal and the method as explained above for Claim 1. Heyn further discloses wherein the control unit does not apply the first timing advance value to the communication, applies the second timing advance value to the communication, and does not apply a third timing advance value corresponding to a link from the base station to the non-terrestrial device to the communication (Heyn Fig.7,8 Para[0192,0196] The UE applies the timing advance value provided by the relay).
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heyn in view of ATUNGSIRI et al. (US 2023/0300768 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Atungsiri”).
Regarding claim 3, Heyn discloses the terminal and the method as explained above for Claim 1. Heyn does not explicitly disclose receive information related to a position of the wireless relay device from the base station, and wherein the control unit calculates the second timing advance value based on the information related to the position of the wireless relay device and information related to a position of the terminal itself.
However, Atungsiri from the same field of invention discloses receive information related to a position of the wireless relay device from the base station, and wherein the control unit calculates the second timing advance value based on the information related to the position of the wireless relay device and information related to a position of the terminal itself (Atungsiri Fig.3a Para[0060-67,0071] The UE calculates differential TA using its position and NT-RN ephemeris received).
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 Heyn to have the feature of “receive information related to a position of the wireless relay device from the base station, and wherein the control unit calculates the second timing advance value based on the information related to the position of the wireless relay device and information related to a position of the terminal itself” as taught by Atungsiri. The motivation would have been to maintain uplink timing advance in NTN to reduce delay and interference (Atungsiri Para[0006]).
Regarding claim 4, Heyn discloses the terminal and the method as explained above for Claim 1. Heyn does not explicitly disclose wherein the control unit applies the first timing advance value to the communication and applies the second timing advance value to the communication.
However, Atungsiri from the same field of invention discloses wherein the control unit applies the first timing advance value to the communication and applies the second timing advance value to the communication (Atungsiri Fig.3a Para[0067,0071] The full TA based on common TA and adjusted UE-specific differential TA applied for uplink transmission).
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 Heyn to have the feature of “wherein the control unit applies the first timing advance value to the communication and applies the second timing advance value to the communication” as taught by Atungsiri. The motivation would have been to maintain uplink timing advance in NTN to reduce delay and interference (Atungsiri Para[0006]).
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).
Additional References
The following prior arts are made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0189088 to Shin
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