DETAILED ACTION
In response to communications filed 11/25/2025.
Claims 1-38 are pending for examination.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4, 8-14, 18-24, 26 and 28-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu et al. (US 2025/0088925 A1) in view of Sotoudeh et al. (US 2023/0268985 A1) hereinafter “Niu” and “Sotoudeh” respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Niu teaches A method for reacting to an indication of a timing source outage (Niu: paragraphs 0049 & 0099, time information of a coverage hole associated with a cell), comprising:
receiving the indication of the timing source outage (Niu: paragraphs 0099-0101, user equipment may acquire time information of a coverage hole associated with a current cell or satellite) at a first node (Niu: paragraphs 0099-0101, said user equipment), wherein the first node is a first terrestrial node comprising one of a user equipment, a first base station, or a server (Niu: paragraphs 0099-0101, said user equipment), the indication of the timing source outage indicates lack of synchronization of a second based station (Niu: paragraph 0099, receiving time information from base station indicating coverage hole associated with serving satellite, thus teaching a lack of timing synchronization; see also paragraph 0035, ground station) with a timing source that is configured to be utilized for timing synchronization (Niu: paragraphs 0099-0101, said time information), the timing source outage is based on a lack of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) timing information at the second base station (Niu: paragraphs 0038, 0047 & 0099, said base station indicating coverage hole associated with serving satellite (i.e. signal loss due to lack of satellite in the coverage area)), and the lack of the GNSS timing information is a result of failure to at least one of receive a GNSS signal from a satellite vehicle at the second base station and decode the GNSS signal at the second base station (Niu: paragraphs 0099 & 0134, base station indicating coverage hole of respective serving satellite to UE, therefore failing to receive a GNSS signal from the serving satellite at the respective base station; see also paragraph 0175, serving satellite is about to stop serving the area where the UE is located); and
modifying, by the first node (Niu: paragraphs 0099-0101, said user equipment), at least one operational function of a second node (Niu: paragraph 0088, neighbor cell (i.e. additional base station)) based on receiving the indication of the timing source outage (Niu: paragraph 0047, 0084, UE selects N cells during cell reselection based on the time information of the coverage hole in the area where UE is located, thus modifying the operations of a selected neighboring cell or additional base station for communicating with the UE)).
Niu fails to alternatively teach deactivating the operation function of a second node based on receiving the indication of the timing source outage.
However, Sotoudeh from an analogous art teaches transmissions of a first node are deactivated when a ground terminal sends a deactivation message to the first node (additional ground terminal) if the signal quality received by the ground terminal from the first node starts to decrease (Sotoudeh: paragraphs 0031 & 0049). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Niu to deactivate a second node as taught by Sotoudeh so as to ensure connections that are affected by signal loss or timing source outage are disabled thereby reducing further loss and/or bandwidth in the network.
Regarding Claim 2, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches the indication of the timing source outage is a failure to decode a timing related signal received from a satellite with the first node (Niu: paragraphs 0038, 0047, coverage hole (i.e. signal loss due to lack of satellite in the coverage area).
Regarding Claim 3, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches the indication of the timing source outage is one or more timing source outage notification messages (Niu: paragraph 0099, UE may acquire indication of the coverage hole associated with the serving satellite or the serving cell).
Regarding Claim 4, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches the at least one operational function is associated with a remote radio head deployment (Niu: paragraph 0063, i.e. base station).
Regarding Claim 8, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the at least one operational function is associated with a handover procedure (Niu: paragraph 0049, cell reselection).
Regarding Claim 9, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the at least one operational function is associated with a cross link interference procedure (Niu: paragraph 0049, cell reselection based on signal reception strength).
Regarding Claim 10, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the first node is the second node and the at least one of deactivating and modifying the at least one operational function of the second node includes deactivating the first node (Sotoudeh: paragraphs 0031 & 0049, deactivate a ground terminal). Examiner recites same reasoning to combine as presented in rejected claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11, Niu teaches A first node (Niu: paragraph 0206 & Fig. 19, communication device or user equipment), comprising:
a memory (Niu: paragraph 0206 & Fig. 19, memory);
at least one transceiver (Niu: paragraph 0206 & Fig. 19 communication module);
at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory and the at least one transceiver (Niu: paragraph 0206 & Fig. 19, processor), and configured to:
receive the indication of the timing source outage (Niu: paragraphs 0099-0101, user equipment may acquire time information of a coverage hole associated with a current cell or satellite), wherein the first node is a first terrestrial node comprising one of a user equipment, a first base station, or a server (Niu: paragraphs 0099-0101, said user equipment), the indication of the timing source outage indicates lack of synchronization of a second based station (Niu: paragraph 0099, receiving time information from base station indicating coverage hole associated with serving satellite, thus teaching a lack of timing synchronization; see also paragraph 0035, ground station) with a timing source that is configured to be utilized for timing synchronization (Niu: paragraphs 0099-0101, said time information), the timing source outage is based on a lack of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) timing information at the second node (Niu: paragraphs 0038, 0047 & 0099, base station indicating coverage hole associated with serving satellite (i.e. signal loss due to lack of satellite in the coverage area)), and the lack of the GNSS timing information is a result of failure to at least one of receive a GNSS signal from a satellite vehicle at the second base station and decode the GNSS signal at the second base station (Niu: paragraphs 0099 & 0134, base station indicating coverage hole of respective serving satellite to UE, therefore failing to receive a GNSS signal from the serving satellite at the respective base station; see also paragraph 0175, serving satellite is about to stop serving the area where the UE is located); and
modify, by the first node (Niu: paragraphs 0099-0101, said user equipment), at least one operational function of a second node (Niu: paragraph 0088, neighbor cell (i.e. second base station)) based on receiving the indication of the timing source outage (Niu: paragraph 0047, 0084, UE selects N cells during cell reselection based on the time information of the coverage hole in the area where UE is located, thus modifying the operations of a selected neighboring cell or base station for communicating with the UE)).
Niu fails to alternatively teach deactivate the operation function of a second node based on receiving the indication of the timing source outage. However, Sotoudeh from an analogous art teaches transmissions of a first node are deactivated when a ground terminal sends a deactivation message to the first node (additional ground terminal) if the signal quality received by the ground terminal from the first node starts to decrease (Sotoudeh: paragraphs 0031 & 0049). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Niu to deactivate a second node as taught by Sotoudeh so as to ensure connections that are affected by signal loss or timing source outage are disabled thereby reducing further loss and/or bandwidth in the network.
Regarding Claim 12, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches the at least one processor is further configured to determine a failure to decode a signal received from a satellite (Niu: paragraphs 0038, 0047, coverage hole (i.e. signal loss due to lack of satellite in the coverage area)).
Regarding Claim 13, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches the at least one processor is further configured to receive one or more timing source outage notification messages (Niu: paragraph 0099, UE may acquire indication of the coverage hole associated with the serving satellite or the serving cell).
Regarding Claim 14, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches the at least one operational function is associated with a remote radio head deployment (Niu: paragraph 0063, i.e. base station).
Regarding Claim 18, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the at least one operational function is associated with a handover procedure (Niu: paragraph 0049, cell reselection).
Regarding Claim 19, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the at least one operational function is associated with a cross link interference procedure (Niu: paragraph 0049, cell reselection based on signal reception strength).
Regarding Claim 20, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the first node is the second node and the at least one of deactivating and modifying the at least one operational function of the second node includes deactivating the first node (Sotoudeh: paragraphs 0031 & 0049, deactivate a ground terminal). Examiner recites same reasoning to combine as presented in rejected claim 11.
Regarding Claim 21, Niu teaches A first node (Niu: paragraph 0206 & Fig. 19, communication device or user equipment) for reacting to an indication of a timing source outage (Niu: paragraphs 0049 & 0099, time information of a coverage hole associated with a cell), comprising:
means for receiving the indication of the timing source outage (Niu: paragraphs 0099-0101, user equipment may acquire time information of a coverage hole associated with a current cell or satellite) wherein the first node is a first terrestrial node comprising one of a user equipment, a first base station, or a server (Niu: paragraphs 0099-0101, said user equipment), the indication of the timing source outage indicates lack of synchronization of a second based station (Niu: paragraph 0099, receiving time information from base station indicating coverage hole associated with serving satellite, thus teaching a lack of timing synchronization; see also paragraph 0035, ground station) with a timing source that is configured to be utilized for timing synchronization (Niu: paragraphs 0099-0101, said time information), the timing source outage is based on a lack of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) timing information at the second base station (Niu: paragraphs 0038, 0047 & 0099, said base station indicating coverage hole associated with serving satellite (i.e. signal loss due to lack of satellite in the coverage area)), and the lack of the GNSS timing information is a result of failure to at least one of receive a GNSS signal from a satellite vehicle at the second base station and decode the GNSS signal at the second base station (Niu: paragraphs 0099 & 0134, base station indicating coverage hole of respective serving satellite to UE, therefore failing to receive a GNSS signal from the serving satellite at the respective base station; see also paragraph 0175, serving satellite is about to stop serving the area where the UE is located); and
means for modifying, by the first node (Niu: paragraphs 0099-0101, said user equipment), at least one operational function of a second node (Niu: paragraph 0088, neighbor cell (i.e. additional base station)) based on receiving the indication of the timing source outage (Niu: paragraph 0047, 0084, UE selects N cells during cell reselection based on the time information of the coverage hole in the area where UE is located, thus modifying the operations of a selected neighboring cell or additional base station for communicating with the UE)).
Niu fails to alternatively teach means for deactivating the operation function of a second node based on receiving the indication of the timing source outage.
However, Sotoudeh from an analogous art teaches transmissions of a first node are deactivated when a ground terminal sends a deactivation message to the first node (additional ground terminal) if the signal quality received by the ground terminal from the first node starts to decrease (Sotoudeh: paragraphs 0031 & 0049). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Niu to deactivate a second node as taught by Sotoudeh so as to ensure connections that are affected by signal loss or timing source outage are disabled thereby reducing further loss and/or bandwidth in the network.
Regarding Claim 22, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches the indication of the timing source outage is a failure to decode a signal received from a satellite with the first node (Niu: paragraphs 0038, 0047, coverage hole (i.e. signal loss due to lack of satellite in the coverage area).
Regarding Claim 23, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches the indication of the timing source outage is one or more timing source outage notification messages (Niu: paragraph 0099, UE may acquire indication of the coverage hole associated with the serving satellite or the serving cell).
Regarding Claim 24, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches the at least one operation function is associated with a remote radio head deployment (Niu: paragraph 0063, i.e. base station).
Regarding Claim 26, Niu teaches A non-transitory processor-readable storage medium comprising processor-readable instructions configured to cause one or more processors (Niu: paragraph 0207 & Fig. 19, computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions to execute on processor), to react to an indication of a timing source outage (Niu: paragraphs 0036-0037 & Fig. 3, estimate path loss of uplink transmission to satellite node), comprising:
code for receiving the indication of the timing source outage (Niu: paragraphs 0099-0101, user equipment may acquire time information of a coverage hole associated with a current cell or satellite) wherein the first node is a first terrestrial node comprising one of a user equipment, a first base station, or a server (Niu: paragraphs 0099-0101, said user equipment), the indication of the timing source outage indicates lack of synchronization of a second based station (Niu: paragraph 0099, receiving time information from base station indicating coverage hole associated with serving satellite, thus teaching a lack of timing synchronization; see also paragraph 0035, ground station) with a timing source that is configured to be utilized for timing synchronization (Niu: paragraphs 0099-0101, said time information), the timing source outage is based on a lack of Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) timing information at the second base station (Niu: paragraphs 0038, 0047 & 0099, said base station indicating coverage hole associated with serving satellite (i.e. signal loss due to lack of satellite in the coverage area)), and the lack of the GNSS timing information is a result of failure to at least one of receive a GNSS signal from a satellite vehicle at the second base station and decode the GNSS signal at the second base station (Niu: paragraphs 0099 & 0134, base station indicating coverage hole of respective serving satellite to UE, therefore failing to receive a GNSS signal from the serving satellite at the respective base station; see also paragraph 0175, serving satellite is about to stop serving the area where the UE is located); and
code for modifying, by the first node (Niu: paragraphs 0099-0101, said user equipment), at least one operational function of a second node (Niu: paragraph 0088, neighbor cell (i.e. additional base station)) based on receiving the indication of the timing source outage (Niu: paragraph 0047, 0084, UE selects N cells during cell reselection based on the time information of the coverage hole in the area where UE is located, thus modifying the operations of a selected neighboring cell or additional base station for communicating with the UE)).
Niu fails to alternatively teach code for deactivating the operation function of a second node based on receiving the indication of the timing source outage.
However, Sotoudeh from an analogous art teaches transmissions of a first node are deactivated when a ground terminal sends a deactivation message to the first node (additional ground terminal) if the signal quality received by the ground terminal from the first node starts to decrease (Sotoudeh: paragraphs 0031 & 0049). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Niu to deactivate a second node as taught by Sotoudeh so as to ensure connections that are affected by signal loss or timing source outage are disabled thereby reducing further loss and/or bandwidth in the network.
Regarding Claim 28, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the at least one operation function is associated with a handover procedure (Niu: paragraph 0049, cell reselection).
Regarding Claim 29, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the at least one operation function is associated with a cross link interference procedure (Niu: paragraph 0049, cell reselection based on signal reception strength).
Regarding Claim 30, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the first node is the second node and the at least one of deactivating and modifying the at least one operational function of the second node includes deactivating the first node (Sotoudeh: paragraphs 0031 & 0049, deactivate a ground terminal). Examiner recites same reasoning to combine as presented in rejected claim 1.
Regarding Claim 31, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the first node is the first base station, the first base station is the second base station, and receiving the indication of the timing source outage comprises receiving a timing source outage from a second user equipment (Niu: paragraphs 0099-0101, user equipment may acquire time information of a coverage hole associated with a current cell or satellite).
Regarding Claim 32, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein deactivating and modifying the at least one operational function comprises transmitting a timing source outage message to a system controller (Sotoudeh: paragraph 0031, deactivation messages to the first node). Examiner recites same reasoning to combine as presented in rejected claim 1.
Regarding Claim 33, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches the first node is the user equipment, receiving the indication of the timing source outage comprises detecting a synchronization error with the second base station (Niu: paragraphs 0099-0101, user equipment may acquire time information of a coverage hole associated with a current cell or satellite), and the at least one of deactivating and modifying the at least one operational function comprises transmitting a timing source outage message to the second node (Niu: paragraph 0047, 0084, UE selects N cells during cell reselection based on the time information of the coverage hole in the area where UE is located, thus modifying the operations of a selected neighboring cell or additional base station for communicating with the UE)), that is a second terrestrial node and that is separate from the first terrestrial node (Niu: paragraph 0035 & Fig. 1, multiple user equipments). Examiner recites same reasoning to combine as presented in rejected claim 1.
Regarding Claim 34, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches transmitting a timing source outage message to a user equipment that is separate from the first node (Niu: paragraphs 0099-0101, UE may acquire time information of a coverage hole associated with a current cell or satellite; see also paragraph 0035 & Fig. 1, multiple user equipments).
Regarding Claim 35, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the user equipment is a first user equipment, the first node is a first base station, the first base station is the second base station, and to receive the indication of the timing source outage the at least one processor is configured to receive, via the at least one transceiver, a timing source outage message from a second user equipment (Niu: paragraphs 0099-0101, UE may acquire time information from a base station of a coverage hole associated with a current cell or satellite).
Regarding Claim 36, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein to at least one of deactivate and modify the at least one operational function the at least one processor is configured to transmit, via the at least one transceiver, a timing source outage message to a system controller (Sotoudeh: paragraph 0031, deactivation messages to the first node). Examiner recites same reasoning to combine as presented in rejected claim 11.
Regarding Claim 37, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches the first node is the user equipment, receiving the indication of the timing source outage comprises detecting a synchronization error with the second base station (Niu: paragraphs 0099-0101, user equipment may acquire time information of a coverage hole associated with a current cell or satellite), and the at least one of deactivating and modifying the at least one operational function comprises transmitting a timing source outage message to the second node (Niu: paragraph 0047, 0084, UE selects N cells during cell reselection based on the time information of the coverage hole in the area where UE is located, thus modifying the operations of a selected neighboring cell or additional base station for communicating with the UE)), that is a second terrestrial node and that is separate from the first terrestrial node (Niu: paragraph 0035 & Fig. 1, multiple user equipments). Examiner recites same reasoning to combine as presented in rejected claim 11.
Regarding Claim 38, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above and further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to transmit, via the at least transceiver, a timing source outage message to a user equipment that is separate from the first node (Niu: paragraphs 0099-0101, UE may acquire time information of a coverage hole associated with a current cell or satellite; see also paragraph 0035 & Fig. 1, multiple user equipments).
Claims 5, 15 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu-Sotoudeh in view of Zarifi et al. (US 2022/0069959 A1) hereinafter “Zarifi.”
Regarding Claim 5, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above however fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one transmission is associated with a component carrier in a carrier aggregation procedure. However, Zarifi from an analogous art teaches a base station in communication with a user equipment for carrier aggregation (Zarifi: paragraph 0146). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Niu-Sotoudeh to include carrier aggregation as taught by Zarifi so as to increase bandwidth between available access technologies
Regarding Claim 15, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above however fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one transmission is associated with a component carrier in a carrier aggregation procedure. However, Zarifi from an analogous art teaches a base station in communication with a user equipment for carrier aggregation (Zarifi: paragraph 0146). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Niu-Sotoudeh to include carrier aggregation as taught by Zarifi so as to increase bandwidth between available access technologies
Regarding Claim 25, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above however fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one transmission is associated with a component carrier in a carrier aggregation procedure. However, Zarifi from an analogous art teaches a base station in communication with a user equipment for carrier aggregation (Zarifi: paragraph 0146). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Niu-Sotoudeh to include carrier aggregation as taught by Zarifi so as to increase bandwidth between available access technologies
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu-Sotoudeh in view of Matolia et al. (US 2021/0345204 A1) hereinafter “Matolia.”
Regarding Claim 6, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above however fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one transmission is associated with a dual connectivity deployment. However, Matolia from an analogous art teaches a UE may check to determine whether the carrier supports SA operation with a 5G next generation core (NGC) network to provide dual connectivity with the NGC network for standalone control signaling through the 5G core for both 5G and 4G networks (Matolia: paragraph 0032). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Niu-Sotoudeh to include dual connectivity deployment as taught by Matolia so as to allow the user equipment to concurrently transmit and receive data on multiple component carriers from different serving nodes or base stations when available.
Regarding Claim 16, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above however fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one transmission is associated with a dual connectivity deployment. However, Matolia from an analogous art teaches a UE may check to determine whether the carrier supports SA operation with a 5G next generation core (NGC) network to provide dual connectivity with the NGC network for standalone control signaling through the 5G core for both 5G and 4G networks (Matolia: paragraph 0032). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Niu-Sotoudeh to include dual connectivity deployment as taught by Matolia so as to allow the user equipment to concurrently transmit and receive data on multiple component carriers from different serving nodes or base stations when available.
Claims 7, 17 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niu-Sotoudeh in view of Xiao et al. (US 2014/0308968 A1) hereinafter “Xiao.”
Regarding Claim 7, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above however fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one transmission is associated with a dynamic spectrum sharing deployment. However, Xiao similarly teaches a dynamic spectrum sharing method and device in which a base station determines and sends spectrum utilization information of an access failure rate of a covered cell to another base station when dynamic spectrum sharing is performed (Xiao: paragraph 0009). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Niu-Sotoudeh to include dynamic spectrum sharing as taught by Xiao so as to allow communications with different radio access technologies configured to share the same spectrum.
Regarding Claim 17, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above however fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one transmission is associated with a dynamic spectrum sharing deployment. However, Xiao similarly teaches a dynamic spectrum sharing method and device in which a base station determines and sends spectrum utilization information of an access failure rate of a covered cell to another base station when dynamic spectrum sharing is performed (Xiao: paragraph 0009). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Niu-Sotoudeh to include dynamic spectrum sharing as taught by Xiao so as to allow communications with different radio access technologies configured to share the same spectrum.
Regarding Claim 27, Niu-Sotoudeh teaches the respective claim(s) as presented above however fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one transmission is associated with a dual connectivity deployment or a dynamic spectrum sharing deployment. However, Xiao similarly teaches a dynamic spectrum sharing method and device in which a base station determines and sends spectrum utilization information of an access failure rate of a covered cell to another base station when dynamic spectrum sharing is performed (Xiao: paragraph 0009). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Niu-Sotoudeh to include dynamic spectrum sharing as taught by Xiao so as to allow communications with different radio access technologies configured to share the same spectrum.
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments:
a) Niu-Sotoudeh alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the timing source outage is based on failure to at least one of receive a GNSS signal from a satellite vehicle at a base station and decode the GNSS signal at the base station (pages 9-10).
Examiner’s response:
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. After review of the prior arts, Niu additionally teaches the user equipment may receive the time information of the coverage hole associated with the serving satellite from the base station (ground station) (Niu: paragraphs 0099-0101). Examiner notes since Niu teaches time information is obtained from the base station indicating a coverage hole associated with serving satellite or satellite vehicle, Niu similarly teaches receiving timing information indicating or based on at least a failure to receive a satellite signal or GNSS signal at the base station due to the lack of a satellite in the coverage area.
Therefore the rejection(s) of amended claims 1, 11 and 21 is maintained.
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 NAJEEB ANSARI whose telephone number is (571)270-5446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am to 2pm.
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, ASAD NAWAZ can be reached at 469-295-9193. 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.
/NAJEEB ANSARI/Examiner, Art Unit 2463
/ASAD M NAWAZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights