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 .
Applicant canceled claims 1-16 and added claims 17-38 in the preliminary amendment filed on 03/28/2024.
The claims 17-38 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 17, 18, 20, 21, 27, and 30 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 recites the limitation "kilometres" in line 5. The limitation should be changed to “kilometers”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the steps of " in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the mid-point" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the total duration " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the basic time unit" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the distance" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "kilometres" in line 5. The limitation should be changed to “kilometers”.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the base station serving the maximum cell range C” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the kth TAO” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the distance” in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "kilometres" in line 7. The limitation should be changed to “kilometers”.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "kilometres" in line 7. The limitation should be changed to “kilometers”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims lack the necessary physical articles or objects to constitute a machine or a manufacture within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 101. They are clearly not a series of steps or acts to be a process nor are they a combination of chemical compounds to be a composition of matter. The claim recites a “computer program product” without any structural recitations and therefore does not have a physical or tangible form. As such, the “computer program product” fail to fall within any of the statutory categories.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an 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.
Claims 34-37 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 34 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.
The specification does not set forth an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language. The specification disclose a “transceiver equipment” as a user equipment, UE/on-board equipment, or OBE (page 1, line 29) but does not disclose any structure corresponding to the claimed "means for transmitting”, “means for determining”, and “means for calculating”. Therefore, the claim failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 35-37 are rejected as being dependent of claim 34 and are rejected using the same basis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-33 are allowed over prior art.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Clairgironnet et al (US Publication No. 2022/0060949 A1) disclose a method for optimizing the network connection procedure in A2G communications, wherein a modem (transceiver equipment) transmits PRACH preambles at different timing offset values if no response is received from the eNodeB (base station) and the initial timing offset value may correspond to the midpoint of the modem's range.
Mahalingam et al (US Publication No. 2021/0029658 A1) disclose Methods, systems, and devices for addressing timing advance (TA) in non-terrestrial network communication, wherein the WTRU transmit a preamble using the timing offset via the PRACH resource and the base station receive the preamble and send a random access response (RAR).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEIKH T NDIAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-3914. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:30pm.
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, JOON H HWANG can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
/CHEIKH T NDIAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
5/1/2026
Prosecution Insights