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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s submission of amendment with remarks/arguments, dated May 17, 2026. Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, and 29-32 have been amended; claims 2, 9, 33, and 34 have been canceled.
Upon entering the amendment, claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, and 29-32 remain pending. This communication is considered fully responsive and sets forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, and 30-32 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, it recites, “A method for determining a time offset in a satellite communication network, performed by a network device, comprising:
sending first information, wherein the first information comprises: timing range information, first indication information, and reference timing information indicating a reference timing time;
wherein the timing range information comprises a first timing range;
wherein a product of the reference timing time and a value indicated by the first indication information indicates a time offset determined from the first timing range.”
The term “a time offset” indicated in italics in the last wherein-clause seems to refer back to the term “a time offset” in the claim preamble. If this is true, it is suggested to amend the term to “the time offset.”
Same rationale applies to the usage of the term “a time offset” in claim 8 line 7.
Claims 3-7, 10-14, and 30-32 are objected to since they all either depend from claim 1 or 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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.
5. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, and 29-32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 1, it recites, “A method for determining a time offset in a satellite communication network, performed by a network device, comprising:
sending first information,
wherein the first information comprises: timing range information, first indication information, and reference timing information indicating a reference timing time;
wherein the timing range information comprises a first timing range;
wherein a product of the reference timing time and a value indicated by the first indication information indicates a time offset determined from the first timing range.”
Claim 1 is a method-step claim, performed by a network device, comprising a sending step and three wherein clauses.
For the sending step, i.e., “sending first information,” the destination or target entity is not defined in the claim. In other words, where does the first information go?
The examiner indicates this issue, since it is related to the limitations in the wherein clauses, e.g., “a reference timing time,” “a first timing range,” etc.
In fact, the usage of the terms, e.g., “a reference timing time” and “a first timing range” become vague without a clear indication on what is the device/entity, that the network device communicates with.
Consequently, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for not particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention.
Same rationale applies to the usage of the terms “a reference timing time” and “a first timing range” in claims 8 and 29.
Claims 3-7, 10-14, and 30-32 are rejected since they all depend from claim 1 or 8.
Claim Re ejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
7. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellfajer et al. (US 2021/0099329) in view of Gunnarsson et al. (US 2022/0236404).
Regarding claim 1, Hellfajer et al. teach the method for determining a time offset in a satellite communication network, performed by a network device (paragraphs [0082] lines 1-13 & [0228] lines 1-17; Examiner’s Notes: satellite 302 illustrated in FIG. 3 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a network device;”
in fact, satellite 302 indicating/determining a time offset, as illustrated in FIG. 3 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “determining a time offset in a satellite communication network, performed by a network device” in the instant application), comprising:
sending first information (paragraphs [0082] lines 1-13 & [0226] lines 1-24; Examiner’s Notes: satellite 302 sending signal/information to wireless device 304 illustrated in FIG. 3 and step 3102 of the flow chart in FIG. 31 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “sending first information” in the instant application),
wherein the first information comprises: timing range information, first indication information, and reference timing information indicating a reference timing time (paragraphs [0192] lines 1-20 & [0226] lines 1-24; Examiner’s Notes: the information regards to the synchronization signal repletion period in the prior art teaches the limitation of “timing range information;”
the cross-correlation information in the prior art teaches the limitation of “first indication information;”
the time reference in the prior art teaches the limitation of “reference timing information indicating a reference timing time;”
in fact, the information including/indicating the synchronization signal repletion period, the cross-correlation information and the time reference in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the first information comprises: timing range information, first indication information, and reference timing information indicating a reference timing time” in the instant application);
wherein the timing range information comprises a first timing range (paragraph [0226] lines 1-24; Examiner’s Notes: the information regards to the synchronization signal repletion period in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a first timing range” in the instant application);
Hellfajer et al. teach the method without explicitly teaching wherein a product of the reference timing time and a value indicated by the first indication information indicates a time offset determined from the first timing range.
Gunnarsson et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, wherein a product of the reference timing time and a value indicated by the first indication information indicates a time offset determined from the first timing range (paragraphs [0227] line 1 – [0230] line 3; Examiner’s Notes: the serving cell base station reference time in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the reference timing time;”
the offset relative to the serving cell base station reference time in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a value indicated by the first indication information indicates a time offset;”
the range to a neighbor base station in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the first timing range;”
in fact, the prior art teaches the first timing range relative to “the reference timing time and a value indicated by the first indication information indicates a time offset;” it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have “a product of the reference timing time and a value indicated by the first indication information indicates a time offset determined from the first timing range.” A design choice is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Gunnarsson et al. in the system of Hellfajer et al.
The motivation for implementing wherein a product of the reference timing time and a value indicated by the first indication information indicates a time offset determined from the first timing range, is to further enhance the mechanism for determining a position of a UE, wherein assistance data is obtained from a network node for determining the position of the UE, a round trip time (RTT) measurement procedure is performed with a serving cell base station to obtain a RTT measurement, a received time is measured of a DL PRS from one or more neighbor base stations, and information indicative of a distance to each of one or more neighbor base stations of a serving cell base station of the UE and location information of the base stations is obtained.
Regarding claim 4, Hellfajer et al. further teach the communication method, wherein the reference timing time comprises one of: one or more slots corresponding to a predetermined subcarrier spacing (SCS); or one or more slots (paragraph [0192] lines 1-20; Examiner’s Notes: the time reference in the prior art teaches the limitation of “reference timing information indicating a reference timing time” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 5, Hellfajer et al. further teach the communication method, wherein the timing range information comprises: a second timing range or second indication information indicating the second timing range (paragraph [0227] lines 1-9; Examiner’s Notes: the accumulation period in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a second timing range or second indication information indicating the second timing range” in the instant application);
wherein the first indication information is further configured to indicate the time offset determined from the second timing range (paragraph [0228] lines 1-14; Examiner’s Notes: the cross-correlation information indicating the time offset determined from the accumulation period in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the first indication information is further configured to indicate the time offset determined from the second timing range” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 7, Hellfajer et al. further teach the communication method, wherein sending the first information comprises: sending a high-layer signaling or a physical layer signaling carrying the first information (paragraph [0234] lines 24-29; Examiner’s Notes: performing/sending a physical layer signaling in the prior art teaches the limitation of “sending a high-layer signaling or a physical layer signaling carrying the first information” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 8, Hellfajer et al. teach the method for determining a time offset in a satellite communication network, performed by a user equipment (UE) (paragraph [0072] lines 1-15; Examiner’s Notes: terminal device 102 illustrated in FIG. 2 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a user equipment (UE)” in the instant application), comprising:
receiving first information (paragraphs [0082] lines 1-13 & [0226] lines 1-24; Examiner’s Notes: receiving wireless signal/information, as shown in step 3102 of the flow chart in FIG. 31, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receiving first information” in the instant application),
wherein the first information comprises: timing range information, first indication information, and reference timing information indicating a reference timing time (paragraphs [0192] lines 1-20 & [0226] lines 1-24; Examiner’s Notes: the information regards to the synchronization signal repletion period in the prior art teaches the limitation of “timing range information;”
the cross-correlation information in the prior art teaches the limitation of “first indication information;”
the time reference in the prior art teaches the limitation of “reference timing information indicating a reference timing time;”
in fact, the information including/indicating the synchronization signal repletion period, the cross-correlation information and the time reference in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the first information comprises: timing range information, first indication information, and reference timing information indicating a reference timing time” in the instant application); and
the timing range information comprises a first timing range (paragraph [0226] lines 1-24; Examiner’s Notes: the information regards to the synchronization signal repletion period in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a first timing range” in the instant application);
determining a timing range for a time offset based on the timing range information (paragraph [0228] lines 1-17; Examiner’s Notes: indicating the synchronization signal repletion period for a time offset in the prior art teaches the limitation of “determining a timing range for a time offset based on the timing range information” in the instant application); and
determining the time offset from the timing range based on the first indication information (paragraph [0228] lines 1-14; Examiner’s Notes: estimating/determining the time offset based on the cross-correlation, as shown in step 3106 of the flow chart in FIG. 31, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “determining the time offset from the timing range based on the first indication information” in the instant application).
Hellfajer et al. teach the method without explicitly teaching determining the time offset from the first timing range based on a product of a value indicated by the first indication information and the reference timing time.
Gunnarsson et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, determining the time offset from the first timing range based on a product of a value indicated by the first indication information and the reference timing time (paragraphs [0227] line 1 – [0230] line 3; Examiner’s Notes: the serving cell base station reference time in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the reference timing time;”
the offset relative to the serving cell base station reference time in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a value indicated by the first indication information indicates a time offset;”
the range to a neighbor base station in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the first timing range;”
in fact, the prior art teaches the first timing range relative to “the reference timing time and a value indicated by the first indication information indicates a time offset;” it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to having “determining the time offset from the first timing range based on a product of a value indicated by the first indication information and the reference timing time.” A design choice is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Gunnarsson et al. in the system of Hellfajer et al.
The motivation for implementing wherein a product of the reference timing time and a value indicated by the first indication information indicates a time offset determined from the first timing range, is to further enhance the mechanism for determining a position of a UE, wherein assistance data is obtained from a network node for determining the position of the UE, a round trip time (RTT) measurement procedure is performed with a serving cell base station to obtain a RTT measurement, a received time is measured of a DL PRS from one or more neighbor base stations, and information indicative of a distance to each of one or more neighbor base stations of a serving cell base station of the UE and location information of the base stations is obtained.
Regarding claim 11, Hellfajer et al. further teach the communication method, wherein the reference timing time comprises one of: one or more slots corresponding to a predetermined subcarrier spacing (SCS); or one or more slots (paragraph [0192] lines 1-20; Examiner’s Notes: the time reference in the prior art teaches the limitation of “reference timing information indicating a reference timing time” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 12, Hellfajer et al. further teach the communication method, wherein determining the timing range for the time offset based on the timing range information comprises one of:
determining a second timing range for the time offset based on the second timing range comprised in the timing range information;
determining a second timing range for the time offset based on second indication information indicating the second timing range and comprised in the timing range information; or
determining a second timing range for the time offset based on ephemeris information comprised in the timing range information (paragraph [0228] lines 1-14; Examiner’s Notes: the cross-correlation information indicating the time offset determined from the accumulation period in the prior art teaches the limitation of “determining a second timing range for the time offset based on the second timing range comprised in the timing range information;”
in fact, the cross-correlation information indicating the time offset determined from the accumulation period in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein determining the timing range for the time offset based on the timing range information comprises one of:
determining a second timing range for the time offset based on the second timing range comprised in the timing range information;
determining a second timing range for the time offset based on second indication information indicating the second timing range and comprised in the timing range information; or
determining a second timing range for the time offset based on ephemeris information comprised in the timing range information” in the instant application as well).
Regarding claim 14, Hellfajer et al. further teach the communication method, wherein receiving the first information comprises: receiving a high-layer signaling or a physical layer signaling carrying the first information (paragraph [0234] lines 24-29; Examiner’s Notes: receiving a physical layer signaling in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receiving a high-layer signaling or a physical layer signaling carrying the first information” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 29, Hellfajer et al. teach the network device in a satellite communication network (paragraph [0082] lines 1-13; Examiner’s Notes: satellite 302 illustrated in FIG. 3 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “communication device” in the instant application), comprising:
a processor (paragraph [0082] lines 1-13; Examiner’s Notes: the prior art teaches satellite 302, as illustrated in FIG. 3, in the prior art; it is anticipated to comprising a processor under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on the teaching of the satellite 302. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977)); and
a memory configured to store a processor-executable instruction (paragraph [0082] lines 1-13; Examiner’s Notes: the prior art teaches satellite 302, as illustrated in FIG. 3, in the prior art; it is anticipated to comprising a memory under 35 U.S.C. 102 based on the teaching of the satellite 302. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977)); wherein the processor is configured to:
send first information (paragraphs [0082] lines 1-13 & [0226] lines 1-24; Examiner’s Notes: satellite 302 sending signal/information to wireless device 304 illustrated in FIG. 3 and step 3102 of the flow chart in FIG. 31 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “send first information” in the instant application),
wherein the first information comprises: timing range information, first indication information, and reference timing information indicating a reference timing time (paragraphs [0192] lines 1-20 & [0226] lines 1-24; Examiner’s Notes: the information regards to the synchronization signal repletion period in the prior art teaches the limitation of “timing range information;”
the cross-correlation information in the prior art teaches the limitation of “first indication information;”
the time reference in the prior art teaches the limitation of “reference timing information indicating a reference timing time;”
in fact, the information including/indicating the synchronization signal repletion period, the cross-correlation information and the time reference in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the first information comprises: timing range information, first indication information, and reference timing information indicating a reference timing time” in the instant application);
wherein the timing range information comprises a first timing range (paragraph [0226] lines 1-24; Examiner’s Notes: the information regards to the synchronization signal repletion period in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a first timing range” in the instant application);
Hellfajer et al. teach the network device without explicitly teaching wherein a product of the reference timing time and a value indicated by the first indication information indicates a time offset determined from the first timing range.
Gunnarsson et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, wherein a product of the reference timing time and a value indicated by the first indication information indicates a time offset determined from the first timing range (paragraphs [0227] line 1 – [0230] line 3; Examiner’s Notes: the serving cell base station reference time in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the reference timing time;”
the offset relative to the serving cell base station reference time in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a value indicated by the first indication information indicates a time offset;”
the range to a neighbor base station in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the first timing range;”
in fact, the prior art teaches the first timing range relative to “the reference timing time and a value indicated by the first indication information indicates a time offset;” it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have “a product of the reference timing time and a value indicated by the first indication information indicates a time offset determined from the first timing range.” A design choice is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Gunnarsson et al. in the system of Hellfajer et al.
The motivation for implementing wherein a product of the reference timing time and a value indicated by the first indication information indicates a time offset determined from the first timing range, is to further enhance the mechanism for determining a position of a UE, wherein assistance data is obtained from a network node for determining the position of the UE, a round trip time (RTT) measurement procedure is performed with a serving cell base station to obtain a RTT measurement, a received time is measured of a DL PRS from one or more neighbor base stations, and information indicative of a distance to each of one or more neighbor base stations of a serving cell base station of the UE and location information of the base stations is obtained.
Regarding claim 30, Hellfajer et al. teach the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored therein a computer executable program that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform the method according to claim 1 (Examiner’s Notes: the prior art teaches the communication method performed by a network device in a non-terrestrial network (NTN) as presented in claim 1 above; it is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 to have “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored therein a computer executable program that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform the communication method according to claim 1.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding claim 31, Hellfajer et al. teach the communication device (paragraph [0072] lines 1-15; Examiner’s Notes: terminal device 102 illustrated in FIG. 2 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “communication device” in the instant application), comprising:
a processor (paragraph [0072] lines 1-15; Examiner’s Notes: application processor 212 in terminal device 102 illustrated in FIG. 2 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a processor” in the instant application); and
a memory configured to store a processor-executable instruction (paragraph [0072] lines 1-15; Examiner’s Notes: memory 214 in terminal device 102 illustrated in FIG. 2 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a memory” in the instant application);
wherein the processor is configured to perform the method according to claim 8 (Examiner’s Notes: see details as presented in claim 8 above).
Regarding claim 32, Hellfajer et al. teach the computer non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored therein a computer executable program that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform the method according to claim 1 (Examiner’s Notes: the prior art teaches the communication method performed by an UE as presented in claim 8 above; it is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 to have “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored therein a computer executable program that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform the communication method according to claim 8.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977)).
8. Claims 3, 6, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellfajer et al. (US 2021/0099329) in view of Gunnarsson et al. (US 2022/0236404) as applied to claim 1 or 8, and further in view of Rohde et al. (US 11,817,938)).
Regarding claim 3, Hellfajer et al. and Gunnarsson et al. teach the wireless communication method without explicitly teaching determining the reference timing information based on ephemeris information of a satellite.
Rohde et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, determining the reference timing information based on ephemeris information of a satellite (column [23] line 53 – [24] line 13; Examiner’s Notes: the ephemeris data from the satellite in the prior art teaches the limitation of “ephemeris information of a satellite;”
in fact, tracking/determining the reference time/delay based on the ephemeris data from the satellite in the prior art teaches the limitation of “determining the reference timing information based on ephemeris information of a satellite” in the instant application).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Rohde et al. in the system of Hellfajer et al. and Gunnarsson et al.
The motivation for implementing determining the reference timing information based on ephemeris information of a satellite, is to further enhance the mechanism for synchronizing a plurality of super frames to a beam switching time plan defining a plurality of dwell times, the beam switching time plan scheduling a switching between at least two beams which are transmitted using a satellite, wherein each beam covers a respective service area so as to forward a respective data frame to the respective service area via the respective beam, wherein each super frame comprises a data frame to be forwarded by the satellite to the respective service area.
Regarding claim 6, Hellfajer et al. and Gunnarsson et al. teach the wireless communication method without explicitly teaching implementing the ephemeris information.
Rohde et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, wherein the timing range information comprises: ephemeris information (column [23] line 53 – [24] line 28; Examiner’s Notes: the time period regards to ephemeris data from a satellite in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the timing range information comprises: ephemeris information” in the instant application),
wherein the ephemeris information is configured to determine a second timing range for the time offset (column [24] lines 4-14; Examiner’s Notes: the illumination period regards to the time offset in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a second timing range for the time offset;”
in fact, tracking/determining the illumination period based on the ephemeris data regards to the time offset in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the ephemeris information is configured to determine a second timing range for the time offset” in the instant application);
wherein the first indication information is further configured to indicate the time offset determined from the second timing range (column [24] lines 15-28; Examiner’s Notes: the ephemeris data indicating the time offset determined/tracked from the illumination period in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the first indication information is further configured to indicate the time offset determined from the second timing range” in the instant application).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Rohde et al. in the system of Hellfajer et al. and Gunnarsson et al.
The motivation for implementing the ephemeris information, is to further enhance the mechanism for synchronizing a plurality of super frames to a beam switching time plan defining a plurality of dwell times, the beam switching time plan scheduling a switching between at least two beams which are transmitted using a satellite, wherein each beam covers a respective service area so as to forward a respective data frame to the respective service area via the respective beam, wherein each super frame comprises a data frame to be forwarded by the satellite to the respective service area.
Regarding claim 10, Hellfajer et al. and Gunnarsson et al. teach the wireless communication method without explicitly teaching determining the reference timing information based on ephemeris information of a satellite.
Rohde et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, wherein the reference timing information is determined based on ephemeris information of a satellite (column [23] line 53 – [24] line 13; Examiner’s Notes: the ephemeris data from the satellite in the prior art teaches the limitation of “ephemeris information of a satellite;”
in fact, tracking/determining the reference time/delay based on the ephemeris data from the satellite in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the reference timing information is determined based on ephemeris information of a satellite” in the instant application).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Rohde et al. in the system of Hellfajer et al. and Gunnarsson et al.
The motivation for implementing the ephemeris information, is to further enhance the mechanism for synchronizing a plurality of super frames to a beam switching time plan defining a plurality of dwell times, the beam switching time plan scheduling a switching between at least two beams which are transmitted using a satellite, wherein each beam covers a respective service area so as to forward a respective data frame to the respective service area via the respective beam, wherein each super frame comprises a data frame to be forwarded by the satellite to the respective service area.
Regarding claim 13, Hellfajer et al. and Gunnarsson et al. teach the wireless communication method without explicitly teaching implementing the ephemeris information.
Rohde et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, wherein determining the second timing range for the time offset based on the ephemeris information (column [23] line 53 – [24] line 28; Examiner’s Notes: determining/tracking the illumination period for the time offset based on the ephemeris data from a satellite in the prior art teaches the limitation of “determining the second timing range for the time offset based on the ephemeris information” in the instant application) comprised in the timing range information comprises:
determining the second timing range for the time offset based on the ephemeris information and a preset correspondence relationship (column [24] lines 4-14; Examiner’s Notes: the pre-calculated tracking scheme in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a preset correspondence relationship;”
in fact, tracking/determining the illumination period for the time offset based on the ephemeris data and the pre-calculated tracking scheme in the prior art teaches the limitation of “determining the second timing range for the time offset based on the ephemeris information and a preset correspondence relationship” in the instant application);
wherein the correspondence relationship is a correspondence relationship between the ephemeris information and the second timing range (column [24] lines 15-28; Examiner’s Notes: the change/correspondence relationship between the ephemeris data and the illumination period in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the correspondence relationship is a correspondence relationship between the ephemeris information and the second timing range” in the instant application).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Rohde et al. in the system of Hellfajer et al. and Gunnarsson et al.
The motivation for implementing the ephemeris information, is to further enhance the mechanism for synchronizing a plurality of super frames to a beam switching time plan defining a plurality of dwell times, the beam switching time plan scheduling a switching between at least two beams which are transmitted using a satellite, wherein each beam covers a respective service area so as to forward a respective data frame to the respective service area via the respective beam, wherein each super frame comprises a data frame to be forwarded by the satellite to the respective service area.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
9. Objection to Specification: in the Response, filed May 17, 2026, Applicants amended the specification to render the objection to the specification moot. The previous objection to the specification is withdrawn.
10. Claim Interpretation under 112(b): Applicants’ amendment with arguments filed May 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
11. Claims Art Rejections: Applicants’ amendment with arguments filed May 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
12. 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 extension fee 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 WEI ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5672. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:00AM to 5:00PM Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor JAE Y. LEE can be reached on 571-270-3936. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WEI ZHAO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights