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 .
Clarity of the Record - Claim Interpretation
Each claim has been reviewed for potentially invoking a 112(f) means plus function interpretation of the claims language. In this instance the term ‘terminal device’ is considered equivalent to a term such as ‘user equipment’ wherein the term has an understood association to one of ordinary skill in the art and is not attempting to invoke 112(f). MPEP 2181.
Clarity of the Record – Contingent Limitations
Each claim has been reviewed in light of MPEP 2111.04(II) and 2143.03 for the appropriate consideration and patentable weight with regards to contingent limitations.
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 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, 11 and 15 of copending Application No. 19173014 (US Pub 20250240760) (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the current claims indicated is encompassed in the scope of the co-pending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is encompassed by claims 1 and 10 of the ‘014 application
Claim 11 is encompassed by claims 11 and 15 of the ‘014 application
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-11, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keating (US Pub 20220295225).
Re claim 1, Keating discloses a position measurement method, comprising:
Starting (Fig 4 el 218-222, Par 143, 151, 154), by a terminal device (Fig 4 el 218-222, Par 143, 151, 154 - UE), global navigation satellite system (GNSS) measurement (Fig 4 el 218-222, Par 143, 151, 154 -utilize GNSS to obtain a new location estimate) and/or a timer related to GNSS measurement (Fig 4 el 218-222, Par 111, 143, 151, 154 – validate timer) in a case that a GNSS position is invalid (Fig 4 el 218-222, Par 143, 151, 154 – location has changed, location is determined to be invalid).
Re claim 11, Keating discloses a terminal device (Fig 4 el 218-222, Par 143, 151, 154 - UE), comprising: a processor (Fig 2 el 120), configured to start GNSS measurement (Fig 4 el 218-222, Par 143, 151, 154 -utilize GNSS to obtain a new location estimate) and/or start a timer related to GNSS measurement (Fig 4 el 218-222, Par 111, 143, 151, 154 – validate timer) in a case that a GNSS position is invalid (Fig 4 el 218-222, Par 143, 151, 154 – location has changed, location is determined to be invalid).
Re claim 4, Keating discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: in a case that the terminal device completes the GNSS measurement (Fig 4 el 218, 222-224; Par 143, 151, 154), transmitting, by the terminal device, a notification message (Fig 4 el 218, 222-224; Par 143, 151, 154), wherein the notification message is used to notify a network device that the terminal device has completed the GNSS measurement (Fig 4 el 218, 222-224; Par 143, 151, 154).
Re claim 14, Keating discloses the terminal device according to claim 11, wherein the terminal device further comprises: a transmitter, configured to transmit a notification message in a case that the terminal device completes the GNSS measurement (Fig 4 el 218, 222-224; Par 143, 151, 154), wherein the notification message is used to notify a network device that the terminal device has completed the GNSS measurement (Fig 4 el 218, 222-224; Par 143, 151, 154).
Re claim 10, Keating discloses the method according to claim 1,and further discloses wherein duration of the timer is configured by a network device (Fig 4 el 204; Par 111-112, 204 – PUR configurations include timer settings).
Re claim 20, Keating disclose the terminal device according to claim 11, and further discloses wherein duration of the timer is configured by a network device (Fig 4 el 204; Par 111-112, 204 – PUR configurations include timer settings).
Claim 5 is rejected in light of the rejection to claim 1, as claim 5 recites a contingent limitation that would not be required to perform the method in the scenario where the terminal starts a GNSS measurement procedure, and in giving weight to the ‘or’ limitation, does not start a timer. Therefore, limitations that require the start of the time as the active method step would not be necessary to complete the method as claimed. See MPEP 2111.04(II) and 2143.03
Claim 6 is rejected in light of the rejection to claim 1, as claim 6 [dependent from claim 5] recites a contingent limitation that would not be required to perform the method in the scenario where the terminal starts a GNSS measurement procedure, and in giving weight to the ‘or’ limitation, does not start a timer. Therefore, limitations that require the start of the time as the active method step would not be necessary to complete the method as claimed. See MPEP 2111.04(II) and 2143.03
Claim 8 is rejected in light of the rejection to claim 1, as claim 8 [dependent from claim 5] recites a contingent limitation that would not be required to perform the method in the scenario where the terminal starts a GNSS measurement procedure, and in giving weight to the ‘or’ limitation, does not start a timer. Therefore, limitations that require the start of the time as the active method step would not be necessary to complete the method as claimed. See MPEP 2111.04(II) and 2143.03
Claim 9 is rejected in light of the rejection to claim 1, as claim 9 recites a contingent limitation that would not be required to perform the method in the scenario where the terminal starts a GNSS measurement procedure, and in giving weight to the ‘or’ limitation, does not start a timer. Therefore, limitations that require the start of the time as the active method step would not be necessary to complete the method as claimed. See MPEP 2111.04(II) and 2143.03
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.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keating (US Pub 20220295225) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of MediaTek (herein after MT)(NPL “Summary #7 of AI 8.15.1 Enhancements to time and frequency synchronization”, see IDS).
Re claim 3, Keating discloses the method according to claim 1, but fails however to explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises: releasing, by the terminal device, radio resource control (RRC) connection to return to an RRC idle state in a case that the timer has expired and the terminal device has not completed GNSS measurement.
This design is however disclosed by MT. MT discloses releasing, by the terminal device, radio resource control (RRC) connection to return to an RRC idle state (Page 9 “UE goes to RRC_idle…”) in a case that the timer has expired and the terminal device has not completed GNSS measurement (Page 9 “UE goes to RRC_idle…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Keating in order to incorporate the idle considerations of MT based on the rationale of the use of known techniques to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance returning the device to an idle state prevents prolonged resource consumption or communication attempts using outdated or incorrect data in the event that the system cannot reestablish updated and accurate data within the provided timing constraints.
Re claim 13, Keating discloses the terminal device according to claim 11, but fails however to explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to release radio resource control (RRC) connection to return to an RRC idle state in a case that the timer has expired and the terminal device has not completed GNSS measurement.
This design is however disclosed by MT. MT discloses wherein the processor is further configured to release radio resource control (RRC) connection to return to an RRC idle state (Page 9 “UE goes to RRC_idle…”) in a case that the timer has expired and the terminal device has not completed GNSS measurement (Page 9 “UE goes to RRC_idle…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Keating in order to incorporate the idle considerations of MT based on the rationale of the use of known techniques to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance returning the device to an idle state prevents prolonged resource consumption or communication attempts using outdated or incorrect data in the event that the system cannot reestablish updated and accurate data within the provided timing constraints.
Claims 2, 7, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keating (US Pub 20220295225) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Han (CN 115175226(A), translation provided by applicant, see IDS).
Re claim 2, Keating discloses the method according to claim 1, but fails however to explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises: performing the GNSS measurement during running of the timer in a case that the terminal device starts the GNSS measurement and starts the timer.
This design is however disclosed by Han. Han discloses wherein the method further comprises: performing the GNSS measurement during running of the timer (Par 85 and 91) in a case that the terminal device starts the GNSS measurement and starts the timer (Par 85 and 91).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Han in order to incorporate the timer considerations of Han based on the rationale of the use of known techniques to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance applying a timing constraint to the measurement processing ensures a protection and efficient use of resources by allowing consideration and response to scenarios where a corrected position measurement cannot be adequately acquired in a reasonable or efficient amount of time.
Re claim 7, the combined disclosure of Keating and Han as a whole discloses the method according to claim 2, Han further discloses wherein a condition for starting the timer comprises at least one of following: the GNSS position is invalid (Par 28, 31, 75); or it is determined, based on a closed-loop timing advance (TA) adjustment mechanism (Par 107-110) and/or a closed-loop frequency offset adjustment mechanism (Par 107-110), that uplink out-of-synchronization occurs on the terminal device (Par 107-113).
Re claim 12, Keating discloses the terminal device according to claim 11, but fails however to explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to perform the GNSS measurement during running of the timer in a case that the GNSS measurement and the timer are started.
This design is however disclosed by Han. Han discloses wherein the processor is further configured to perform the GNSS measurement during running of the timer (Par 85 and 91) in a case that the GNSS measurement and the timer are started (Par 85 and 91).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Han in order to incorporate the timer considerations of Han based on the rationale of the use of known techniques to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance applying a timing constraint to the measurement processing ensures a protection and efficient use of resources by allowing consideration and response to scenarios where a corrected position measurement cannot be adequately acquired in a reasonable or efficient amount of time.
Re claim 17, the combined disclosure of Keating and Han as a whole discloses the terminal device according to claim 12, Han further discloses wherein a condition for the processor to start the timer comprises at least one of following: the GNSS position is invalid (Par 28, 31, 75); or it is determined, based on a closed-loop timing advance (TA) adjustment mechanism (Par 107-110) and/or a closed-loop frequency offset adjustment mechanism (Par 107-110), that uplink out-of-synchronization occurs on the terminal device (Par 107-113).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15, 16, 18 and 19 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: The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the above cited claims. Re claims 15 and 19 the prior art fails to disclose the specified timer functionality and the associated reception of a measurement command.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is (571)270-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm.
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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/MICHAEL R NEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights