DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final, first action on the merits, in response to application filed September 13, 2024. The preliminary amended claims 21-40, are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 9/13/2024, 05/06/2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 21, 24-25, 27, 29, 31, 34-35, 37, 39, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al (hereinafter Feng) (CN 110557191A, IDS reference).
Regarding claim 21, 31, Feng discloses a computing system (method), comprising:
processing circuitry (system comprises a processor, para. 0021); and
a memory device (a memory, para. 0021) including instructions embodied thereon, wherein the instructions which when executed by the processing circuitry, configure the processing circuitry to perform operations that (para. 0073):
obtain orbital position data for a low-earth orbit satellite vehicle (SV), the low- earth orbit SV to operate as a serving transmission and reception point (TRP) to a user equipment (UE) (method periodically transmits a downlink synchronization signal and a downlink broadcast channel by using a single low-earth orbit satellite, wherein the downlink broadcast channel includes downlink beam center point coordinates and satellite coordinates or satellite orbit parameter information) (paras. 0010, 0011, 0020, 0021);
determine a timing measurement of at least one communication between the serving TRP and the UE (wherein the low earth orbit satellite is used to periodically transmit downlink synchronization signals and a downlink broadcast channel, and wherein the downlink broadcast channel comprises downlink beam center point coordinates and satellite coordinates or satellite orbit parameter information) (para. 0013, see also claims 1, 2). Feng does not expressly show calculate a geographic location of the UE based on the orbital position data and the timing measurement. However, Feng discloses (see claim 1: calculating position coordinates of the ground terminal according to a plurality of sight distance measurement data and a simultaneous pseudo range difference equation). However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would arrive at the claimed invention by general experimentation alone without exercising any ingenuity location of the UE utilizing the disclosure per Feng as an obvious choice.
Regarding claim 24, 34, Feng discloses obtain UE geographic position data, based on coordinates obtained at the UE from a global navigation satellite system (GNSS), wherein the coordinates provide an initial position to calculate a timing advance for the UE; wherein the geographic location of the UE is further verified based on a comparison of the UE geographic position data with the calculated geographic location. (calculating the position coordinates of the ground terminal according to the plurality of sight distance measurement data and a simultaneous pseudo range difference equation) (see Feng claim 21).
Regarding claims 25, 35, Feng discloses wherein the at least one communication provides a reference signal, and wherein the timing measurement is a reference signal time difference between a receipt and a transmission of the reference signal from the UE (see Feng Claim 1).
Regarding claims 27, 37, Feng discloses obtaining orbital position data, except obtain from third-party source of satellite positioning. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain third-party as a source of satellite position since it was known in the art that by doing so additional orbital data could be utilized for assessing calculation.
Regarding claims 29, 39, Feng discloses computing system obtain orbital position data, except Location Management Function (LMF) or Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF). Use of AMF or LMF in communication systems is notoriously known in the art that manages the physical location of a number of communication devices connected to a network including 3GPP/5G network. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make use/deploy known services such as LMF or AMF for the benefit of activity history information where needed for movement management.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-23, 26, 28, 30, 32-33, 36, 38 and 40, 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUTBUDDIN GHULAMALI whose telephone number is (571) 272-3014. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 4:00pm.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571 272 3042. 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.
/QUTBUDDIN GHULAMALI/
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2632.
Prosecution Insights