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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant' s submission for Domestic Benefit/National State Information under 35 U.S.C. 371 for PCT/CN2021/139335 with filing date 12/17/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/14/2024, 04/22/2025, and 11/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 35 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicants' arguments and remarks filed on 08/11/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicants' amendments overcome objections to the drawings.
Applicants' amendments overcome objections to the specification.
Applicants' amendments overcome objections to the claims.
Applicants' amendments overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection.
Applicants' amendments overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 have been canceled in view of claim 1, 12, and 23 amendments.
Claims 10, 19, 21, 22, and 25-28 were previously canceled.
Claims 1-4, 6, 11-14, 16, 20, 23, and 24 have been amended.
Claims 1-7, 11-16, 20, 23, and 24 are pending.
This action includes a new ground of rejection based on Sengupta et al. (US 2022/0322477 A1). That ground is applied to subject matter of claims 1, 12, 23, and 24 that Applicant previously presented in claims 8, 9, 17, and 18, which were examined in the prior action. The new ground therefore was not necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, and this action is made non-final (MPEP § 706.07(a)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks 9-11, filed 08/11/2026, with respect to Claims 1 and 23 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) of Claims 1 and 23 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 08/11/20, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-9, 11-18, 20, and 23-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wen et al. (‘784) in view of Sengupta et al. (‘477).
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “the wireless communication system and the GNSS.” Neither term has antecedent basis in claim 7, claim 6, or claim 1; these terms are introduced in claim 2, from which claim 7 does not depend. The examiner interprets the phrase as “a wireless communication system and a GNSS.” Suggested correction: “a wireless communication system and a GNSS.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 12, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al. (US 2024/0396784 A1) in view of Sengupta et al. (US 2022/0322477 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Wen et al. (‘784) in view of Sengupta et al. (‘477) teaches:
Wen et al. (‘784) teaches: A global navigation satellite system (GNSS) measurement method, performed by a terminal, comprising: ([0036]: “the communication network 100 may comprise a terminal device 110“; [0066]: “The method 300 can be implemented at the first device 110 as shown in FIG. 1“).
Wen et al. (‘784) teaches: performing a GNSS measurement in a connected state in response to expiration of current GNSS position information of the terminal ([0049]: “The UE 110 may keep the RRC connected state within the gap“; [0051]: “the UE 110 may receive the system broadcasted information when or after the validity timer for a current GNSS measurement expires“; [0052]: “With the system broadcasted information, for example, the UE 110 may perform the GNSS measurement and re-acquire the GNSS fix position“). The validity timer for the current GNSS measurement corresponds to the validity of the terminal’s current GNSS position information. The terminal performs the GNSS measurement after that timer expires while it remains in the RRC connected state.
Wen et al. (‘784) does not explicitly teach, but Sengupta et al. (‘477) teaches: obtaining an expiration time of the current GNSS position information ([0016]: “expiration of the synchronization timer includes expiry of a global navigation satellite system fix associated with the connection“; [0101]: “resetting the synchronization timer may be based on UE 115-a acquiring the global navigation satellite system fix“; [0099]: “when resetting the synchronization timer, UE 115-a may autonomously determine the on-duration of the synchronization timer (e.g., the active time duration before synchronization timer expires)“). Sengupta’s UE determines the time at which its GNSS-fix-based validity ends from the restart time and the on-duration of the timer.
Wen et al. (‘784) does not explicitly teach, but Sengupta et al. (‘477) teaches: and sending second indication information indicating that the current GNSS position information is going to expire and indicating the expiration time to a network device ([0099]: “UE 115-a may indicate to the other NTN device when the synchronization timer was restarted, or the duration of the restarted synchronization timer, or both (e.g., synchronization timer restarted at HH: MM: SS in time zone X with a duration of 2 minutes)” and “the other NTN device may determine that resources for UE 115-a may be scheduled during the indicated duration (e.g., for 2 minutes from the indicated time HH:MM:SS)“; [0094]: “the NTN device may anticipate that the synchronization may be invalid within some time period (e.g., within X seconds when X seconds are left on the synchronization timer)”). The “other NTN device” is a network node or base station (Sengupta [0099]: “network node 120-a or base station 105-a“). Sengupta’s report gives the network the time at which the GNSS-fix-based validity ends and so indicates that the information will expire at that time. The claim is interpreted as set forth in the Response to Arguments below.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connected-state GNSS refresh of Wen et al. (‘784) so that the terminal obtains the expiration time of its GNSS-fix validity and reports it to the network device, as taught by Sengupta et al. (‘477). One would have been motivated to do so because Wen’s network side acts relative to the terminal’s validity timer: the validity timer is network-configurable ([0039]: “can be configured by the network, which is referred to, for example, when the timer can be set or reset, the duration of the timer“); the gNB configures the time window “before the validity timer for a current GNSS measurement expires” ([0058]); the second device provides random-access parameters “before a validity timer for a current Global Navigation Satellite System, GNSS, measurement expires” ([0086]).
Wen does not describe how the network learns when the terminal’s GNSS fix, which the terminal acquires itself, will lapse. However, Sengupta addresses that problem by having the UE report the restart time and validity duration so that the network can schedule resources within the indicated window ([0099]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because both references address uplink synchronization for NTN terminals whose validity depends on a GNSS fix, and Sengupta carries the report on existing uplink signaling ([0100]: “may be transmitted via a random access preamble message, or a scheduling request, or in a message using a configured grant“).
Regarding Claim 23, Wen et al. (‘784) in view of Sengupta et al. (‘477) teaches:
Wen et al. (‘784) teaches: A terminal comprising: a processor; and a memory having computer programs stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the terminal to: ([0094]: “The device 500 may be provided to implement the communication device, for example the UE 110 and the gNB 120” and “the device 500 includes one or more processors 510, one or more memories 540 coupled to the processor 510“; [0098]: “A computer program 530 includes computer executable instructions that are executed by the associated processor 510“; [0099]: “the device 500 may perform any process of the disclosure as discussed with reference to FIGS. 2 to 4“).
The remaining limitations of claim 23 are perform a GNSS measurement in a connected state in response to expiration of current GNSS position information of the terminal; obtain an expiration time of the current GNSS position information; and send second indication information indicating that the current GNSS position information is going to expire and indicating the expiration time to a network device. Each corresponds to a limitation of claim 1:
Wen et al. (‘784) teaches the first limitation for the reasons set forth for claim 1 and Wen et al. (‘784) does not explicitly teach, but Sengupta et al. (‘477) teaches, the second and third limitations, for the reasons and with the citations set forth for claim 1.
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the processor and memory of Wen’s device 500, when implementing the UE 110, to obtain the GNSS-validity expiration time and report it to the network as taught by Sengupta et al. (‘477). The motivation stated for claim 1 is incorporated here: Wen’s network acts before the terminal’s validity timer expires ([0058], [0086]), and Sengupta’s report supplies the timing the network needs ([0099]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because Wen’s device 500 executes stored programs implementing the UE processes ([0098-0099]), and Sengupta’s report uses existing uplink messages ([0100]).
Regarding Claim 12, Wen et al. (‘784) in view of Sengupta et al. (‘477) teaches:
Wen et al. (‘784) teaches: A global navigation satellite system (GNSS) measurement method, performed by a network device, comprising: ([0080]: “The method 400 can be implemented at the second device 120 as shown in FIG. 1“; [0089]: “the first device comprises a terminal device and the second device comprises a network device“).
Wen et al. (‘784) teaches: determining that current GNSS position information of a terminal has expired ([0084]: “the second device may transmit the system broadcasted information not earlier than a validity timer for a current Global Navigation Satellite System, GNSS, measurement expires“; [0039]: the validity timer “can be configured by the network“). Wen’s network device times its transmission to the expiry of the terminal’s current GNSS-measurement validity timer, which the network configures. In doing so, it determines that the terminal’s current GNSS position information has expired.
Wen et al. (‘784) teaches: and causing the terminal to perform a GNSS measurement in a connected state ([0081]: “the second device transmits, to a first device, a configuration of a gap within which a radio resource control connected state of the first device is kept“; [0083]: “the second device transmit, within the gap, system broadcasted information used for deriving a compensation associated with a transmission between the first device and a second device“; [0052]: “With the system broadcasted information, for example, the UE 110 may perform the GNSS measurement and re-acquire the GNSS fix position“).
Wen et al. (‘784) does not explicitly teach, but Sengupta et al. (‘477) teaches: receiving second indication information sent by the terminal, wherein the second indication information indicates that the current GNSS position information is going to expire and indicating an expiration time of the current GNSS position information ([0099]: “UE 115-a may indicate to the other NTN device when the synchronization timer was restarted, or the duration of the restarted synchronization timer, or both” and “the other NTN device may determine that resources for UE 115-a may be scheduled during the indicated duration“; [0016]: “expiration of the synchronization timer includes expiry of a global navigation satellite system fix associated with the connection“). Sengupta’s network node receives the terminal’s report of when its GNSS-fix-based validity ends.
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Wen’s second device to receive the terminal’s report of the expiration time of its GNSS-fix validity, as taught by Sengupta et al. (‘477). One would have been motivated to do so because Wen’s second device must act at or before the terminal’s validity-timer expiry ([0084], [0086]), while the terminal acquires its GNSS fix itself. Sengupta’s report gives the network node the restart time and duration it needs to schedule the terminal within the validity window ([0099]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because both references operate in the same NTN uplink-synchronization framework, and Sengupta’s report reaches the network node on existing uplink signaling ([0100]).
Regarding Claim 24, Wen et al. (‘784) in view of Sengupta et al. (‘477) teaches:
Wen et al. (‘784) teaches: A network device comprising: a processor; and a memory having computer programs stored thereon that when, executed by the processor, cause the network device to execute the method of claim 12 ([0005]: “The second device comprises at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program codes“; [0089]: “the second device comprises a network device“; [0094]: device 500 implements “the gNB 120“; [0099]: “the device 500 may perform any process of the disclosure as discussed with reference to FIGS. 2 to 4“).
The method of claim 12 is taught by Wen et al. (‘784) in view of Sengupta et al. (‘477) as set forth above. The motivation and reasonable expectation of success stated for claim 12 are incorporated here: Wen’s network device acts relative to the terminal’s validity-timer expiry ([0084], [0086]), and Sengupta supplies the terminal’s timing report ([0099-0100]).
Claims 2-7, 11, 13-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen et al. (US 2024/0396784 A1) in view of Sengupta et al. (US 2022/0322477 A1) and further in view of Liberg et al. (US 2022/0417889 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Wen et al. (‘784) in view of Sengupta et al. (‘477) and further in view of Liberg et al. (‘889) teaches the method according to Claim 1.
Wen et al. (‘784) teaches: maintaining a radio resource control (RRC) connection between the terminal and the network device at the expiration of the current GNSS position information ([0049]: “The UE 110 may keep the RRC connected state within the gap“; [0051]: “when or after the validity timer for a current GNSS measurement expires“; [0063]: “the UE 110 may continue the DL/UL data transmission with gNB 120 by reusing the available RRC connection“).
Wen et al. (‘784) does not explicitly teach, but Liberg et al. (‘889) teaches: wherein the terminal supports a wireless communication system and a GNSS simultaneously ([0114]: “In RRC Connected state, the wireless device … may support GNSS measurements in parallel to cellular operation“; [0115]: “signals its capabilities of simultaneous GNSS measurements“).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the connected-state GNSS refresh of Wen et al. (‘784) on a terminal that supports cellular operation and GNSS measurement simultaneously, as taught by Liberg et al. (‘889). One would have been motivated to do so because Wen keeps the RRC connection during the GNSS refresh ([0049], [0063]), and Liberg identifies parallel GNSS and cellular operation in the RRC Connected state as a recognized terminal capability that enables GNSS measurement without leaving the connected state ([0114]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because both references operate GNSS measurement within the 3GPP RRC Connected state framework for NTN terminals.
Regarding Claim 3, Wen et al. (‘784) in view of Sengupta et al. (‘477) and further in view of Liberg et al. (‘889) teaches the method according to Claim 2.
Wen et al. (‘784) does not explicitly teach, but Liberg et al. (‘889) teaches: sending first indication information to the network device, wherein the first indication information is configured to indicate whether the terminal supports the wireless communication system and the GNSS simultaneously ([0115]: “signals its capabilities of simultaneous GNSS measurements“; [0117]: “signals its GNSS measurement capabilities to the network/network node 16, to allow the network/network node 16 to make use of at least part of this information and to configure the wireless device 22 to network node interface during RRC Connected state“).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the terminal of Wen et al. (‘784) signal its simultaneous-operation capability to the network, as taught by Liberg et al. (‘889). One would have been motivated to do so because Wen’s gNB provides the gap configuration ([0046]: “the UE 110 may obtain the configuration of the gap from the gNB 120“), and Liberg teaches that capability signaling allows the network to configure the terminal during RRC Connected state ([0117]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because capability signaling and gap configuration are both exchanged between the terminal and the network in the same RRC framework.
Regarding Claim 4, Wen et al. (‘784) in view of Sengupta et al. (‘477) and further in view of Liberg et al. (‘889) teaches the method according to Claim 3.
Wen et al. (‘784) does not explicitly teach, but Liberg et al. (‘889) teaches: determining a measurement duration required for the GNSS measurement of the terminal and indicating the measurement duration to the network device ([0131]: “to support the determination of a measurement gap length, the wireless device 22 … may report its time to perform GNSS measurements when the GNSS measurements are sent so that the network node 16 … may adaptively change measurement gap configurations based at least in part on the reported time(s)“; Claim 22: “transmit a report indicating a time for the wireless device to perform the at least one GNSS measurement“).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the terminal of Wen et al. (‘784) determine and report its GNSS measurement time, as taught by Liberg et al. (‘889). One would have been motivated to do so because Wen’s gap must accommodate the GNSS fix refresh ([0044], [0063]), and Liberg teaches that the reported measurement time lets the network size the measurement gap ([0131]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because Liberg’s report is carried in the same terminal-to-network signaling used for gap configuration.
Regarding Claim 5, Wen et al. (‘784) in view of Sengupta et al. (‘477) and further in view of Liberg et al. (‘889) teaches the method according to Claim 4.
Wen et al. (‘784) does not explicitly teach, but Liberg et al. (‘889) teaches: indicating the measurement duration through the first indication information ([0114]: “a wireless device 22 … signals its capability (e.g., measurement capability information) to perform GNSS measurements” and “Another example of different capability levels is GNSS time to fix, i.e., the time that may be required by the wireless device 22 to determine its position“). Liberg’s capability signaling carries both the parallel-operation capability ([0114-0115]) and the time required for the GNSS fix.
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to convey the measurement duration within the capability signaling of the combined system, as taught by Liberg et al. (‘889). One would have been motivated to do so because Liberg expressly identifies GNSS time to fix as a capability item signaled with the GNSS measurement capability ([0114]), which the network uses when determining the gap configuration ([0119]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because both items are capability information already sent to the network in Liberg.
Regarding Claim 6, Wen et al. (‘784) in view of Sengupta et al. (‘477) and further in view of Liberg et al. (‘889) teaches the method according to Claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the alternatives “specified by a protocol or indicated by a network.” Only one alternative need be taught. The “indicated by a network” alternative is relied upon, and the remaining alternative need not be addressed.
Wen et al. (‘784) teaches: obtaining measurement configuration information of the GNSS measurement … indicated by a network ([0046]: “the UE 110 may obtain the configuration of the gap from the gNB 120“).
Wen et al. (‘784) does not explicitly teach, but Liberg et al. (‘889) teaches: wherein the measurement configuration information comprises a measurement gap of the GNSS measurement; and wherein performing the GNSS measurement comprises: performing the GNSS measurement within the measurement gap configured for the terminal ([0100]: “the GNSS measurement gap configuration configures the wireless device 22 that is in a radio resource control, RRC, connected state with at least one transmission gap during which a GNSS measurement is to be performed“; [0121]: “may be configured to perform GNSS measurements during these gaps“).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the network-provided gap of Wen et al. (‘784) as a GNSS measurement gap within which the GNSS measurement is performed, as taught by Liberg et al. (‘889). One would have been motivated to do so because Wen’s gap is described in terms of RRC state retention and broadcast reception ([0044], [0050]), and Liberg defines a gap configured specifically for GNSS measurement in RRC Connected state ([0100], [0119]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because Liberg demonstrates GNSS measurement within configured gaps in the RRC Connected state ([0121]).
Regarding Claim 7, Wen et al. (‘784) in view of Sengupta et al. (‘477) and further in view of Liberg et al. (‘889) teaches the method according to Claim 6.
Wen et al. (‘784) teaches: wherein the measurement configuration information of the GNSS measurement is indicated by the network ([0046]: “the UE 110 may obtain the configuration of the gap from the gNB 120“).
Wen et al. (‘784) does not explicitly teach, but Liberg et al. (‘889) teaches: wherein the measurement configuration information is determined based on first indication information sent by the terminal to the network device, wherein the first indication information is configured to indicate whether the terminal supports the wireless communication system and the GNSS simultaneously (Claim 1: “the GNSS measurement gap configuration being based at least in part on the received measurement capability information“; [0119]: “may use the capability information signaled by the wireless device 22 when determining the configuration of the gaps“; [0115]: “signals its capabilities of simultaneous GNSS measurements“). Claim 7 is interpreted as set forth in the claim objection above.
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Wen’s gNB determine the gap configuration from the terminal’s simultaneous-operation capability, as taught by Liberg et al. (‘889). One would have been motivated to do so because Liberg teaches that the network uses the signaled capability when determining the GNSS measurement gap configuration ([0119]); a terminal that supports parallel GNSS and cellular operation may not need the same gap as one that does not ([0114]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because Liberg’s capability-based configuration operates in the same RRC Connected state framework as Wen’s gap.
Regarding Claim 11, Wen et al. (‘784) in view of Sengupta et al. (‘477) and further in view of Liberg et al. (‘889) teaches the method according to Claim 1.
Wen et al. (‘784) does not explicitly teach, but Liberg et al. (‘889) teaches: receiving measurement confirmation information sent by the network device, wherein the measurement confirmation information is configured to indicate that the terminal is capable of performing the GNSS measurement ([0099]: “indicate (Block S140) the GNSS measurement gap configuration to the wireless device 22“; Claim 13: “receive an indication of a GNSS measurement gap configuration during which the wireless device is to perform at least one GNSS measurement during at least one GNSS measurement gap, the GNSS measurement gap configuration being based at least in part on the received measurement capability information; and perform the at least one GNSS measurement“).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a network message sent in response to the terminal’s capability signaling, which identifies when the terminal is to perform the GNSS measurement, is information configured to indicate that the terminal is capable of performing the GNSS measurement. The claim does not require the confirmation to follow the second indication information.
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Wen’s gNB send the terminal a capability-based GNSS measurement gap indication, as taught by Liberg et al. (‘889). One would have been motivated to do so because Liberg’s indication tells the terminal, based on its reported capability, that it is to perform the GNSS measurement in the configured gap (Claim 13), which coordinates the terminal’s measurement with Wen’s connected-state refresh ([0049], [0052]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because the indication is a downlink configuration message in the same RRC framework.
Regarding Claim 13, Wen et al. (‘784) in view of Sengupta et al. (‘477) and further in view of Liberg et al. (‘889) teaches the method according to Claim 12.
Wen et al. (‘784) does not explicitly teach, but Liberg et al. (‘889) teaches: receiving first indication information sent by the terminal, wherein the first indication information is configured to indicate whether the terminal supports a wireless communication system and a GNSS simultaneously ([0098]: “receive (Block S136) measurement capability information of a wireless device 22“; [0115]: “signals its capabilities of simultaneous GNSS measurements“).
Wen et al. (‘784) teaches: and maintaining a radio resource control (RRC) connection between the terminal and the network device at expiration of the current GNSS position information of the terminal ([0081]: “the second device transmits, to a first device, a configuration of a gap within which a radio resource control connected state of the first device is kept“; [0084]: “not earlier than a validity timer for a current Global Navigation Satellite System, GNSS, measurement expires“; [0063]: “by reusing the available RRC connection“).
Wen et al. (‘784) does not explicitly teach, but Liberg et al. (‘889) teaches: in response to the first indication information indicating that the terminal supports the wireless communication system and the GNSS simultaneously ([0117]: “to allow the network/network node 16 to make use of at least part of this information and to configure the wireless device 22 to network node interface during RRC Connected state“; [0119]: “may use the capability information signaled by the wireless device 22 when determining the configuration of the gaps“).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Wen’s network device receive the terminal’s simultaneous-operation capability and maintain the RRC connection based on it, as taught by Liberg et al. (‘889). One would have been motivated to do so because Liberg teaches that the network configures the terminal’s RRC Connected operation from the capability it receives ([0117], [0119]), and parallel GNSS and cellular support is the capability that permits GNSS measurement while connected ([0114]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because both references operate network-side RRC Connected configuration for GNSS measurement.
Regarding Claim 14, Wen et al. (‘784) in view of Sengupta et al. (‘477) and further in view of Liberg et al. (‘889) teaches the method according to Claim 13.
Wen et al. (‘784) does not explicitly teach, but Liberg et al. (‘889) teaches: obtaining a measurement duration required for the GNSS measurement of the terminal (Claim 10: “receive a report indicating a time for the wireless device to perform the at least one GNSS measurement“; [0131]: “may report its time to perform GNSS measurements“).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Wen’s network device obtain the terminal’s GNSS measurement time, as taught by Liberg et al. (‘889). One would have been motivated to do so because Liberg teaches that the network uses the reported time to “adaptively change measurement gap configurations” ([0131]), which applies directly to Wen’s network-configured gap ([0081]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because the report is received over the same terminal-to-network signaling.
Regarding Claim 15, Wen et al. (‘784) in view of Sengupta et al. (‘477) and further in view of Liberg et al. (‘889) teaches the method according to Claim 14.
Wen et al. (‘784) does not explicitly teach, but Liberg et al. (‘889) teaches: determining the measurement duration based on the first indication information ([0114]: “Another example of different capability levels is GNSS time to fix, i.e., the time that may be required by the wireless device 22 to determine its position“; [0119]: “may use the capability information signaled by the wireless device 22 when determining the configuration of the gaps“; Claim 8: “determine a time length of a GNSS measurement gap … based on at least one of a number of GNSS satellites, a quality of a GNSS receiver at the wireless device and an indicated failure to receive a GNSS position“). Liberg’s network determines the time allotted for the GNSS measurement from capability information, which includes the time required to fix.
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Wen’s network device determine the measurement duration from the capability information, as taught by Liberg et al. (‘889). One would have been motivated to do so because Liberg identifies the time required to fix as part of the signaled capability ([0114]) and teaches using that capability to configure the gaps ([0119]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because the determination uses information already received by the network in Liberg.
Regarding Claim 16, Wen et al. (‘784) in view of Sengupta et al. (‘477) and further in view of Liberg et al. (‘889) teaches the method according to Claim 13.
Wen et al. (‘784) does not explicitly teach, but Liberg et al. (‘889) teaches: determining measurement configuration information of the GNSS measurement based on the first indication information and sending the measurement configuration information to the terminal, wherein the measurement configuration information comprises a measurement gap of the GNSS measurement (Claim 1: “determine a GNSS measurement gap configuration during which the wireless device is to perform at least one GNSS measurement during at least one GNSS measurement gap, the GNSS measurement gap configuration being based at least in part on the received measurement capability information; and indicate the GNSS measurement gap configuration to the wireless device“; [0119]).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Wen’s network device determine and send a capability-based GNSS measurement gap configuration, as taught by Liberg et al. (‘889). One would have been motivated to do so because Wen’s network already sends a gap configuration ([0081]), and Liberg teaches basing that configuration on the terminal’s signaled capability so the gap suits the terminal’s GNSS operation ([0119]). There is a reasonable expectation of success because Liberg’s configuration is sent over the same RRC signaling as Wen’s gap configuration.
Regarding Claim 20, Wen et al. (‘784) in view of Sengupta et al. (‘477) and further in view of Liberg et al. (‘889) teaches the method according to Claim 12.
Wen et al. (‘784) does not explicitly teach, but Liberg et al. (‘889) teaches: sending measurement confirmation information to the terminal, wherein the measurement confirmation information is configured to indicate that the terminal is capable of performing the GNSS measurement ([0099]: “indicate (Block S140) the GNSS measurement gap configuration to the wireless device 22“; Claim 1: “the GNSS measurement gap configuration being based at least in part on the received measurement capability information“). This limitation is interpreted as set forth for claim 11.
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Wen’s network device send a capability-based GNSS measurement gap indication to the terminal, as taught by Liberg et al. (‘889). The reasons stated for claim 11 are incorporated here: the indication tells the terminal, based on its capability, when it is to perform the GNSS measurement, and it uses the same downlink RRC configuration framework.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wakabayashi et al. (US 2021/0212124 A1) describes a terminal device that checks whether broadcast positioning assistance information is sufficient based on a system value tag, validity area, or validity time, and transmits an on-demand system information request when it is not. It relates to the present application as GNSS assistance-information validity handling, but it does not describe the terminal reporting the expiration of its own GNSS position information to the network.
Jung et al. (US 2015/0208267 A1) describes a terminal measurement report method in which the terminal activates or deactivates positioning to acquire location information and includes it with measurement results reported to the network. It relates to the present application as background on terminal positioning activity in connection with network reporting in a connected state.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REMASH R GUYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-0115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Resha H Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/REMASH R GUYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights