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
Applicant’s claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) or indicate National Stage entry from a PCT application is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 01/07/2025 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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 20 is rejected under 35 USC 101 since the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 20 recites a “computer readable storage medium” which appears to cover both transitory and non-transitory embodiments. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is required to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
The Examiner suggests that the Applicant amend the limitation as, "non-transitory computer readable storage medium", to the claim(s) in order to properly render the claims in statutory form in view of their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the originally filed specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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 1 recites, “receiving a frequency adjustment indication from the network node and receiving an indication from the network node corresponding to a variation in Doppler shift over time, the indication comprising a time for which the frequency adjustment indication is valid.” However, it is unclear whether the last indication (i.e. “the indication that comprising a time for which the frequency adjustment indication is valid”) is related to “a frequency adjustment indication”; or it is related to “an indication” corresponding to a variation in Doppler shift. Furthermore, the relationship between a frequency adjustment indication and an indication corresponding to a variation in Doppler shift is not clear.
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are also rejected by the virtue of it/their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 8 recites, “transmitting a frequency adjustment indication to the wireless device, based on the determined Doppler shift estimate and transmitting an indication corresponding to a determined variation in Doppler shift over time, the indication comprising a time for which the frequency adjustment indication is valid.” However, it is unclear whether the last indication (i.e. “the indication that comprising a time for which the frequency adjustment indication is valid”) is related to “a frequency adjustment indication”; or it is related to “an indication” corresponding to a determined variation in Doppler shift. Furthermore, the relationship between a frequency adjustment indication and an indication corresponding to a determined variation in Doppler shift is not clear.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are also rejected by the virtue of it/their dependency on claim 8.
Claim 11 recites, “receive a frequency adjustment indication from the network node and receive an indication from the network node corresponding to a variation in Doppler shift over time, the indication comprising a time for which the frequency adjustment indication is valid.” However, it is unclear whether the last indication (i.e. “the indication that comprising a time for which the frequency adjustment indication is valid”) is related to “a frequency adjustment indication”; or it is related to “an indication” corresponding to a variation in Doppler shift. Furthermore, the relationship between a frequency adjustment indication and an indication corresponding to a variation in Doppler shift is not clear.
Claim(s) 12-17 is/are also rejected by the virtue of it/their dependency on claim 11.
Claim 18 recites, “cause the network node to transmit a frequency adjustment indication to the wireless device, based on the determined Doppler shift estimate and transmit an indication corresponding to a determined variation in Doppler shift over time, the indication comprising a time for which the frequency adjustment indication is valid.” However, it is unclear whether the last indication (i.e. “the indication that comprising a time for which the frequency adjustment indication is valid”) is related to “a frequency adjustment indication”; or it is related to “an indication” corresponding to a determined variation in Doppler shift. Furthermore, the relationship between a frequency adjustment indication and an indication corresponding to a determined variation in Doppler shift is not clear.
Claim(s) 19 is/are also rejected by the virtue of it/their dependency on claim 11.
Claim 20 recites, “receiving a frequency adjustment indication from the network node and receiving an indication from the network node corresponding to a variation in Doppler shift over time, the indication comprising a time for which the frequency adjustment indication is valid.” However, it is unclear whether the last indication (i.e. “the indication that comprising a time for which the frequency adjustment indication is valid”) is related to “a frequency adjustment indication”; or it is related to “an indication” corresponding to a variation in Doppler shift. Furthermore, the relationship between a frequency adjustment indication and an indication corresponding to a variation in Doppler shift is not clear.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 8, 11-13, 18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 11, 15, 16 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12136966. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because , for example, claim 1 is generic to all limitations recited in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12136966. That is, claims 1-12 are anticipated by claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7- 10, and 13-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11950143.
Claim 1 of the current Application
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12136966
1. A method performed by a wireless device for operating in a non-terrestrial network, NTN, the NTN comprising at least one network node and a communication satellite, the at least one network node being one of a terrestrial base station and a satellite base station or satellite gateway, the method comprising:
1. A method performed by a wireless device for operating in a non-terrestrial network, NTN, the NTN including at least one network node and a communication satellite, the at least one network node being one of a terrestrial base station, a satellite base station and satellite gateway, the method comprising:
obtaining a frequency offset corresponding to one or both of a Doppler shift of transmission and reception frequencies between the wireless device and the network node;
obtaining a frequency offset corresponding to at least one of a Doppler shift of transmission and reception frequencies between the wireless device and the network node;
applying the frequency offset to an uplink transmission to the network node;
applying the frequency offset to an uplink transmission to the network node, the uplink transmission being part of an initial access procedure;
and receiving a frequency adjustment indication from the network node and receiving an indication from the network node corresponding to a variation in Doppler shift over time, the indication comprising a time for which the frequency adjustment indication is valid.
and receiving an indication from the network node corresponding to a variation in Doppler shift over time, the indication including at least one of: a further frequency adjustment indication; a time for which the frequency adjustment indication is valid; and configuring the wireless device with a plurality of frequency offsets and a corresponding duration for which each frequency offset of the plurality of frequency offsets is valid.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12136966 includes further limitations but encompass all of the limitations of claim 1 of the current application.
Nonetheless, the removal of said limitations from claim 1 of the current application made claim 1 a broader version of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12136966. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)), claim 1 is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12136966 (similar comparison would be applied for intendent claims 8, 11, 18 and 20 to claims 11, 15, 16 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12136966 respectively).
The limitations of claims 2 are included in claim(s) 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12136966 (with obvious wording or phrase variations) respectively.
The limitations of claims 3 are included in claim(s) 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12136966 (with obvious wording or phrase variations) respectively.
The limitations of claims 12 are included in claim(s) 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12136966 (with obvious wording or phrase variations) respectively.
The limitations of claims 13 are included in claim(s) 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12136966 (with obvious wording or phrase variations) respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Sonnenschein et al. -US 6130859- disclose Method And Apparatus For Carrying Out High Data Rate And Voice Underwater Communication.
Roh et al. -US 20110156954 A1- disclose Position And Velocity Uncertainty Metrics In GNSS Receivers.
Ward -US 20180083718 A1- discloses SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR CANCELLING PHASE NOISE INDUCED BY ANTENNA VIBRATION.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAHYAR KASRAIA N whose telephone number is (571)270-1772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5: 00 pm.
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, RAFAEL PEREZ-GUTIERREZ can be reached at (571)272-7915. 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.
/ALLAHYAR KASRAIA N/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights