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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/26 have been fully considered.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Yu does not disclose the “assistance information” as recited in the instant claim because the “assistance information” in the instant claim is a dynamic communication assistance availability while Yu only has announcements of conventional network capability. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, the term dynamic communication assistance availability is not used in the claims, nor any other similar term. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., dynamic communication assistance availability) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Secondly, the term dynamic communication assistance availability is not a term of art. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art could reasonably interpret the announcements of conventional network capability in Yu as corresponding to it.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant argues that Yu does not disclose at the first UE “transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to a second UE, an NTN communication assistance availability message indicating that NTN communication assistance is available based on a determination that the NTN communication is available at the first UE.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 110 of Yu discloses that the candidate relay (which corresponds to the first UE) sends a bit that indicates whether NTN communication is available or not, wherein 0 indicates NTN and 1 indicates not. Thus, sending a 0 could reasonably be interpreted as “sending an NTN communication assistance availability message indicating that NTN communication assistance is available.” And thus, if instead a 1 is sent, that would correspond to not “sending an NTN communication assistance availability message indicating that NTN communication assistance is available.” Because transmitting a 0 indicates NTN capability, the candidate relay device setting the bit to 0 in and of itself shows that the candidate relay device is determining that it has an NTN capability, regardless of how reliable that determination is (i.e. the value is not being set randomly). Thus, Yu does teach this feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Yu does not disclose “transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to the second UE, an indication that the first UE is seeking the NTN communication assistance in response to the NTN communication assistance availability message” because the indication in Yu is general purpose and not directed towards specifically seeking NTN communication assistance. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is implied in the previously cited portions of Yu that because the connection being established is NTN relaying, that the process through which the remote UE connects to the relay UE is indicating that it wants NTN communication assistance. This can be seen in more detail in paragraph 253 of Yu. In paragraph 253 of Yu, the remote UE evaluates the connection with the relay UE based on the discovery information the relay UE sends, and if the evaluation is acceptable the remote UE selects to access the relay UE. Otherwise, the remote UE discards the relay UE. Thus, the messages showing that the remote UE is accessing the relay UE imply that the remote UE has selected the relay UE based on the discovery information, and is thus seeking the type of connection indicated in the discovery information (e.g. NTN communication assistance). Thus, Yu does teach this feature of the claims.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the remaining claims are based on their dependence or similarity to the previously discussed claims, and are respectfully disagreed with for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10, 12, 17, 22, 26, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yu (US 20240088993 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses:
“A first user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories; one or more transceivers; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more transceivers, the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to:” ([¶ 0441]: “FIG. 18 is a schematic structural diagram of a remote device according to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure. The remote device includes: a processor 111, a receiver 112, a transmitter 113, a memory 114 and a bus 115.”)
“receive, via the one or more transceivers, from a second UE, a non-terrestrial network (NTN) communication assistance availability message indicating that NTN communication assistance is available from the second UE; and” ([¶ 0056]: “Step 2 [of Fig. 5] is a discovery procedure. In step 2, the discovery procedure can use either model A or model B.”; [¶ 0072]: “In Model A, a candidate relay device may send a discovery message.”; [¶ 0110]: “Determination method 1: in a case where the discovery message of the candidate relay device carries the first indication information and the first indication information is 0, it is determined that the network access mode of the candidate relay device is the NTN access...”)
“transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to the second UE, an indication that the first UE is seeking the NTN communication assistance in response to the NTN communication assistance availability message.” ([¶ 0057]: “Step 3 is establishment of connection for one-to-one communication. The relay UE may establish a new PDN connection for relay.”)
Regarding claim 3, Yu discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yu further discloses “wherein the NTN communication assistance availability message comprises one or more information elements (IEs) comprising: terrestrial network out-of-service (OOS) information; an NTN service provider; NTN availability information; average narrowband reference signal received power (NRSRP); an indication of jamming of NTN frequency bands; or any combination thereof.” ([¶ 0110]: “Determination method 1: in a case where the discovery message of the candidate relay device carries the first indication information and the first indication information is 0, it is determined that the network access mode of the candidate relay device is the NTN access...”)
Regarding claim 10, Yu discloses:
“A first user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories; one or more transceivers; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories and the one or more transceivers, the one or more processors, either alone or in combination, configured to::” ([¶ 0441]: “FIG. 18 is a schematic structural diagram of a remote device according to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure. The remote device includes: a processor 111, a receiver 112, a transmitter 113, a memory 114 and a bus 115.”)
“determine that a non-terrestrial network (NTN) communication is available at the first UE; transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to a second UE, an NTN communication assistance availability message indicating that NTN communication assistance is available based on a determination that the NTN communication is available at the first UE; and” ([¶ 0056]: “Step 2 [of Fig. 5] is a discovery procedure. In step 2, the discovery procedure can use either model A or model B.”; [¶ 0072]: “In Model A, a candidate relay device may send a discovery message.”; [¶ 0110]: “Determination method 1: in a case where the discovery message of the candidate relay device carries the first indication information and the first indication information is 0, it is determined that the network access mode of the candidate relay device is the NTN access...”)
“receive, via the one or more transceivers, from the second UE, an indication that the second UE is seeking the NTN communication assistance.” ([¶ 0057]: “Step 3 is establishment of connection for one-to-one communication. The relay UE may establish a new PDN connection for relay.”)
Regarding claim 12, Yu discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yu further discloses “wherein the NTN communication assistance availability message comprises one or more information elements (IEs) comprising: terrestrial network out-of-service (OOS) information; an NTN service provider; NTN availability information; average narrowband reference signal received power (NRSRP); an indication of jamming of NTN frequency bands; or any combination thereof.” ([¶ 0110]: “Determination method 1: in a case where the discovery message of the candidate relay device carries the first indication information and the first indication information is 0, it is determined that the network access mode of the candidate relay device is the NTN access...”)
Regarding claim 17, Yu discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yu further discloses “receive, via the one or more transceivers, from the second UE, an indication that the first UE is present within a communication range of the second UE.” ([¶ 0072]: “In Model A, a candidate relay device may send a discovery message.”)
Claim 22, 26 and 28 are substantially similar to claims 1, 10, and 17 and are thus rejected for similar reasons.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 14-16, 21, 23, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 20240088993 A1) in view of Shuman (US 20230100298 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Yu discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yu does not explicitly disclose “wherein the NTN communication assistance availability message is a sensor data sharing message (SDSM) or a collective perception message (CPM).”
However, Shuman discloses the missing feature “wherein the NTN communication assistance availability message is a sensor data sharing message (SDSM) or a collective perception message (CPM).” ([¶ 0059]: “In an aspect, OBC 200 may use WWAN transceiver 230 to transmit and receive sensor data sharing messages (SDSM) over the Uu interface to perform various V2X/C-V2X communications such as V2I (vehicle-to-infrastructure), V2N (vehicle-to-network), V2V (vehicle-to-vehicle), V2P (vehicle-to-pedestrian), V2D (vehicle-to-device) and V2G (vehicle-to-grid) communication.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Yu and Shuman, to modify the technique as disclosed by Yu, to utilize the SDSM as disclosed by Shuman. The motivation for doing so is that it increases interoperability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yu with Shuman to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 5, Yu discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yu does not explicitly disclose “establish a cellular vehicle-to-everything (C-V2X) communication with the second UE.”
However, Shuman discloses the missing feature “establish a cellular vehicle-to-everything (C-V2X) communication with the second UE.” ([¶ 0059]: “In an aspect, OBC 200 may use WWAN transceiver 230 to transmit and receive sensor data sharing messages (SDSM) over the Uu interface to perform various V2X/C-V2X communications such as V2I (vehicle-to-infrastructure), V2N (vehicle-to-network), V2V (vehicle-to-vehicle), V2P (vehicle-to-pedestrian), V2D (vehicle-to-device) and V2G (vehicle-to-grid) communication.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Yu and Shuman, to modify the technique as disclosed by Yu, to utilize the C-V2X as disclosed by Shuman. The motivation for doing so is that it increases interoperability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yu with Shuman to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, Yu discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yu does not explicitly disclose “transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to the second UE, an emergency message via the cellular C-V2X communication.”
However, Shuman discloses the missing feature “transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to the second UE, an emergency message via the cellular C-V2X communication.” ([¶ 0046]: “Sidelink communication may be unicast or multicast, and may be used for device-to-device (D2D) media-sharing, V2V communication, V2X communication (e.g., cellular V2X (cV2X) communication, enhanced V2X (eV2X) communication, etc.), emergency rescue applications, etc.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Yu and Shuman, to modify the technique as disclosed by Yu, to be utilized for an emergency communication as disclosed by Shuman. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yu with Shuman to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, Yu discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yu does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first UE is a vehicle.”
However, Shuman discloses the missing feature “wherein the first UE is a vehicle.” ([¶ 0046]: “Sidelink communication may be unicast or multicast, and may be used for device-to-device (D2D) media-sharing, V2V communication, V2X communication (e.g., cellular V2X (cV2X) communication, enhanced V2X (eV2X) communication, etc.), emergency rescue applications, etc.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Yu and Shuman, to modify the technique as disclosed by Yu, to be utilized with vehicles as disclosed by Shuman. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yu with Shuman to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 11, Yu discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yu does not explicitly disclose “wherein the NTN communication assistance availability message is a sensor data sharing message (SDSM) or a collective perception message (CPM).”
However, Shuman discloses the missing feature “wherein the NTN communication assistance availability message is a sensor data sharing message (SDSM) or a collective perception message (CPM).” ([¶ 0059]: “In an aspect, OBC 200 may use WWAN transceiver 230 to transmit and receive sensor data sharing messages (SDSM) over the Uu interface to perform various V2X/C-V2X communications such as V2I (vehicle-to-infrastructure), V2N (vehicle-to-network), V2V (vehicle-to-vehicle), V2P (vehicle-to-pedestrian), V2D (vehicle-to-device) and V2G (vehicle-to-grid) communication.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Yu and Shuman, to modify the technique as disclosed by Yu, to utilize the SDSM as disclosed by Shuman. The motivation for doing so is that it increases interoperability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yu with Shuman to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 14, Yu discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yu does not explicitly disclose “establish a cellular vehicle-to-everything (C-V2X) communication with the second UE.”
However, Shuman discloses the missing feature “establish a cellular vehicle-to-everything (C-V2X) communication with the second UE.” ([¶ 0059]: “In an aspect, OBC 200 may use WWAN transceiver 230 to transmit and receive sensor data sharing messages (SDSM) over the Uu interface to perform various V2X/C-V2X communications such as V2I (vehicle-to-infrastructure), V2N (vehicle-to-network), V2V (vehicle-to-vehicle), V2P (vehicle-to-pedestrian), V2D (vehicle-to-device) and V2G (vehicle-to-grid) communication.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Yu and Shuman, to modify the technique as disclosed by Yu, to utilize the C-V2X as disclosed by Shuman. The motivation for doing so is that it increases interoperability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yu with Shuman to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 15, Yu in view of Shuman discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yu does not explicitly disclose “receive, via the one or more transceivers, from the second UE, an emergency message via the cellular C-V2X communication.”
However, Shuman discloses the missing feature “receive, via the one or more transceivers, from the second UE, an emergency message via the cellular C-V2X communication.” ([¶ 0046]: “Sidelink communication may be unicast or multicast, and may be used for device-to-device (D2D) media-sharing, V2V communication, V2X communication (e.g., cellular V2X (cV2X) communication, enhanced V2X (eV2X) communication, etc.), emergency rescue applications, etc.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Yu and Shuman, to modify the technique as disclosed by Yu, to be utilized for an emergency communication as disclosed by Shuman. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yu with Shuman to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 16, Yu in view of Shuman discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yu further discloses “relay, to a network node, the emergency message via the NTN communication.” ([¶ 0059]: “In step 5 and step 6, the remote performs Remote UE Report. The relay UE reports to the network the ID (Identification) and Internet Protocol (IP) information of the remote UE, and according to the reported information, the network learns the association relationship between the relay UE and the remote UE, so as to perform corresponding bearer/session management and configuration. In this way, the remote UE is connected to the network through the relay UE, and a relayed traffic is completed.” Wherein the emergency message aspect is taught by Shuman as discussed in relation to the parent claim.)
Regarding claim 21, Yu discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yu does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first UE is a vehicle.”
However, Shuman discloses the missing feature “wherein the first UE is a vehicle.” ([¶ 0046]: “Sidelink communication may be unicast or multicast, and may be used for device-to-device (D2D) media-sharing, V2V communication, V2X communication (e.g., cellular V2X (cV2X) communication, enhanced V2X (eV2X) communication, etc.), emergency rescue applications, etc.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Yu and Shuman, to modify the technique as disclosed by Yu, to be utilized with vehicles as disclosed by Shuman. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yu with Shuman to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 23 and 27 are substantially similar to claims 5 and 14 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 20240088993 A1) in view of Van Phan (US 20230269800 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Yu discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yu does not explicitly disclose “transmit, via the one or more transceivers, a groupcast message seeking the NTN communication assistance.”
However, Van Phan discloses the missing feature “transmit, via the one or more transceivers, a groupcast message seeking the NTN communication assistance.” ([¶ 0197]: “The source UE 110 (Tx UE) sends (by broadcast or groupcast) a relay request message 11 to one or more relay UEs 110 (R-UEi) which may be known or unknown to the source UE110 (Tx UE).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Yu and Van Phan, to modify the technique as disclosed by Yu, to use groupcast as disclosed by Van Phan. The motivation for doing so is that it allows selection of the best link, thus improving performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yu with Van Phan to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 13, Yu discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yu does not explicitly disclose “receive, via the one or more transceivers, from the second UE, a groupcast message seeking the NTN communication assistance.”
However, Van Phan discloses the missing feature “receive, via the one or more transceivers, from the second UE, a groupcast message seeking the NTN communication assistance.” ([¶ 0197]: “The source UE 110 (Tx UE) sends (by broadcast or groupcast) a relay request message 11 to one or more relay UEs 110 (R-UEi) which may be known or unknown to the source UE110 (Tx UE).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Yu and Van Phan, to modify the technique as disclosed by Yu, to use groupcast as disclosed by Van Phan. The motivation for doing so is that it allows selection of the best link, thus improving performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yu with Van Phan to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 18-20 and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 20240088993 A1) in view of Thomas (US 20250063576 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Yu discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yu does not explicitly disclose “receive, via the one or more transceivers, from the second UE, an indication that the second UE is seeking positioning assistance from the first UE; and transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to the second UE, positioning assistance information in response to the indication that the second UE is seeking the positioning assistance.”
However, Thomas discloses the missing feature “receive, via the one or more transceivers, from the second UE, an indication that the second UE is seeking positioning assistance from the first UE; and transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to the second UE, positioning assistance information in response to the indication that the second UE is seeking the positioning assistance.” ([¶¶ 0143-0145]: “n the procedure 800: 1. UE1 (i.e. Target UE) may receive a Ranging/SL Positioning Service request from: 1a. SL Positioning Client UE over PC5 during procedures for Ranging/SL Positioning service exposure though PC5.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Yu and Thomas, to modify the technique as disclosed by Yu, to utilize the positioning requests as disclosed by Thomas. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yu with Thomas to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 19, Yu in view of Thomas discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yu does not explicitly disclose “wherein the positioning assistance information includes ranging information.”
However, Thomas discloses the missing feature “wherein the positioning assistance information includes ranging information.” ([¶¶ 0143-0145]: “n the procedure 800: 1. UE1 (i.e. Target UE) may receive a Ranging/SL Positioning Service request from: 1a. SL Positioning Client UE over PC5 during procedures for Ranging/SL Positioning service exposure though PC5.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Yu and Thomas, to modify the technique as disclosed by Yu, to utilize the ranging information as disclosed by Thomas. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yu with Thomas to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 20, Yu in view of Thomas discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Yu does not explicitly disclose “transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to the second UE, a sidelink synchronization signal (SLSS) in response to the indication that the second UE is seeking the positioning assistance.”
However, Thomas discloses the missing feature “transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to the second UE, a sidelink synchronization signal (SLSS) in response to the indication that the second UE is seeking the positioning assistance.” ([¶ 0218]: “The example SL-PRS transmission characteristics indicated above may be part of a resource index list comprising of multiple SL-PRS transmission characteristics. In other implementations, the SL-PRS transmission characteristics may include QCL information such as a QCL source, e.g., SLSS, or another SL-PRS.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Yu and Thomas, to modify the technique as disclosed by Yu, to utilize the ranging information as disclosed by Thomas. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yu with Thomas to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 29 and 30 are substantially similar to claims 18 and 20 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 and 24-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, of the closest prior arts Yu (US 20240088993 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim. However, Yu does not disclose “determine whether an NTN communication is available at the first UE; determine whether a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signal is present; and transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to the second UE, an indication that the first UE is present within a communication range of the second UE based on a determination that the NTN communication is available at the first UE and a determination that the GNSS signal is present.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 7 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination. Claim 24 is similar to claim 7 and contains allowable subject matter for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 8, of the closest prior arts Yu (US 20240088993 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim. However, Yu does not disclose “determine whether an NTN communication is available at the first UE; determine whether a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) signal is present; and transmit, via the one or more transceivers, to the second UE, an indication that the first UE is seeking positioning assistance from the second UE based on a determination that the NTN communication is available at the first UE and a determination that the GNSS signal is not present.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 8 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination. Claim 25 is similar to claim 8 and contains allowable subject matter for similar reasons.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights