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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed March 31, 2026 has been accepted and entered. Accordingly, Claims 1, 4-8, 11, 17, 19-20, and 23 have been amended.
Claims 1-2, 4-13, and 17-24 are pending in this application.
In view of the amendment, the previous objection to claim 17 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, Applicant argues that Antonio does not teach “communication node pairing information comprising… a second indication of a secondary communication node indicating a predetermined alternative to the primary communication node for uplink transmission” because the gateway periodically transmits a handoff direction message that includes an “add beam set” and/or “drop beam set” to modify the “active beam set”, and that relates to a user terminal periodically evaluating and selecting a beam for communicating with a gateway (see page 10). Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant.
Antonio et al. teaches that a gateway transmits a beam mask message (BMM) to the user terminal, and that the BMM contains a list of beam identifiers (col. 8, lines 55-58). BMM identifies beams from multiple satellites such that BMM identifies three identifiers of a beam from a different one of the three different satellite that are all visible to the user terminal (col. 9, lines 4-10; col. 10, lines 34-44). That is, the BMM transmitted to the UE of Antonio et al. reads on the communication node pairing information recited in amended claim as it includes identifiers of beams as well as different satellites, which beam can be used as a predetermined alternative to the beam included in the active beam set. Additionally, newly added reference, Lu et al. teaches that a UE and network side reach pre-agreement on which beams qualify as the backup beams for a serving beam (para. [0042]). Further, Lu et al. teaches that all of the back beams belong to an access node (AN) different from the AN of the serving beam (para. [0066]).
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-13, and 17-24 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.
In particular, claim 1 recites, inter alia, “cause the receiver to receive communication node pairing information comprising a first indication of one or more non-functional reverse beams of a primary communication node to be used by the user equipment during a first communication cycle and a second indication of a secondary communication node indicating a predetermined alternative to the primary communication node for uplink transmissions”. It is not clear why non-functional reverse beams is indicated in the communication node pairing information if such beams cannot be used.
Similar limitation is included in claims 11 and 17.
Claims 2, 4-13, and 18-24 are rejected for their dependency.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 11, 17-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonio et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6208858) and further in view of Lu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0219604).
Regarding Claim 1, Antonio et al. teaches A user equipment (user terminal 124 (FIG. 11)), comprising: a transmitter (transceiver 1100 (FIG. 11)); a receiver (receiver (FIG. 1)); and processing circuitry (control unit 1120 (FIG. 11)) coupled to the transmitter and the receiver and configured to cause the receiver to receive communication node pairing information comprising a first indication of one or more non-functional reverse beams of a primary communication node to be used by the user equipment during a first communication cycle and a second indication of a secondary communication node indicating a predetermined alternative to the primary communication node for uplink transmissions (Antonio et al. teaches that a gateway transmits a beam mask message (BMM) to the user terminal, and that the BMM contains a list of beam identifiers (col. 8, lines 55-58); beam identifier each identify a satellite/beam pair, and that the first beam identifier in BMM identifies beam one from satellite one, and the second beam identifier identifies beam three from satellite one (col. 9, lines 4-10); FIG. 6A shows BMM that identifies a primary communication node of satellite 1 and a secondary communication node of satellite 2 (FIG. 6A); the BMM identifies three different satellite that are all visible to the user terminal (col. 10, lines 34-40); user terminal measures the beam strength identified in the most recent BMM received from the gateway (FIG. 5A, step 506)), cause the receiver to receive a third indication of a reverse beam of the primary communication node to be used during a second communication cycle based on one or more signals received from the primary communication node during the first communication cycle (Antonio et al. teaches that PSMM transmitted from the user terminal to the gateway contains one or more beam identifiers from BMM and corresponding beam strength values (col. 10, lines 16-18); that the gateway selects the strongest beam in the PSMM and adds that beam to the new active beam set (FIG. 8, step 804); gateway determines the strongest ‘alternate’ beam that is any satellite beam within the PSMM that is projected by a satellite other than a satellite that project a beam that is in the new active set (FIG. 8, Step 806); gateway sends a handoff direction message (HDM) to the user terminal, and that the HDM contains two sets of beam identifiers, i.e., add beam set and a drop beam set (FIG. 5, step 518; col. 13, lines 12-15)[Examiner’s Note: the strength of beams transmitted first communication cycle was measured, and based on that HDM contains add beam set and a drop beam set, indicating beam of the satellite to be used in next period]).
Although teaching receiving the add beam set and the drop beam set to determine beams to be used for communications as noted above, Antonio et al. does not explicitly teach a first indication of one or more non-functional reverse beams of a primary communication node to be used by the user equipment during a first communication cycle and a second indication of a secondary communication node indicating a predetermined alternative to the primary communication node for uplink transmissions, and based on the reverse beam in the third indication corresponding to the one or more non-functional reverse beams, cause the transmitter to transmit one or more transmission signals to the secondary communication node during the second communication cycle. Lu et al. teaches such limitations.
Lu et al. is directed to recovery from beam failure. More specially, Lu et al. teaches a first indication of one or more non-functional reverse beams of a primary communication node to be used by the user equipment during a first communication cycle and a second indication of a secondary communication node indicating a predetermined alternative to the primary communication node for uplink transmissions (Lu et al. teaches that UE determines whether beam failure for the current serving beam occurs (para. [0060])[Examiner’s note: beam of the serving cell to be used is non-functional]; UE determines that beam failure for the current serving cell occurs if UE fails to receive a follow-up DL signaling after the UL transmission (para. [0070]), indicating uplink transmission), and based on the reverse beam in the third indication corresponding to the one or more non-functional reverse beams, cause the transmitter to transmit one or more transmission signals to the secondary communication node during the second communication cycle (Lu et al. teaches that UE initiates multiple transmission by sending a backup beam activation command via uplinks associated with both of the serving and backup beams (para. [0071]); beam F2 is selected as the new serving beam, and the neighboring node resume a UL grant to UE to confirm the activation of the backup beam (para. [0072])).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UE of Antonio et al. so that the active beam set including add beam set is used to transmit signals to the secondary communication node, as taught by Lu et al. The modification would have allowed the system to enable efficient and reliable recovery from the beam failure (see Lu et al., para [0005] and [0022]).
Regarding Claim 2, the combined teachings of Antonio et al. and Lu et al. teach The user equipment of claim 1, and further, the references teach wherein the communication node pairing information comprises communication node identification information associated with the primary communication node and the secondary communication node (Antonio et al. teaches that BMM includes a list of beam identifiers, each identify a satellite/beam pair (col. 9, lines 4-10); FIG. 6A shows BMM that identifies a primary communication node of satellite 1 and a secondary communication node of satellite 2 (FIG. 6A); FIG. 6C illustrates a PAM that is sent as part of the BMM, and that PAM contains an adjust value for beam eleven of satellite one and an adjust value of beam sixteen of satellite two (FIG. 6C, col. 9, lines 46-53)); and beam identification information associated with a plurality of reverse beams associated with the primary communication node or the secondary communication node (Antonio et al. teaches FIG. 6A shows BMM that identifies a primary communication node of satellite 1 and a secondary communication node of satellite 2 (FIG. 6A); FIG. 6C illustrates a PAM that is sent as part of the BMM, and that PAM contains an adjust value for beam eleven of satellite one and an adjust value of beam sixteen of satellite two (FIG. 6C, col. 9, lines 46-53); Lu et al. teaches UE determines that beam failure for the current serving cell occurs if UE fails to receive a follow-up DL signaling after the UL transmission (para. [0070]), indicating uplink transmission).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UE of Antonio et al. so that the beam identification information associated with a plurality of beams that is used to transmit signals to the secondary communication node, as taught by Lu et al. The modification would have allowed the system to enable efficient and reliable recovery from the beam failure (see Lu et al., para [0005] and [0022]).
Regarding Claim 4, the combined teachings of Antonio et al. and Lu et al. teach The user equipment of claim 1, and further, the references teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the receiver to receive the communication node pairing information from a communication network before receiving the one or more signals from the primary communication node (Antonio et al. teaches BMM is transmitted to the user terminal, and the user terminal periodically measures a strength of each beam identified in the BMM (col. 3, lines 13-20), indicating that BMM is received prior to the signals from the primary communication node that were measured.), and cause the receiver to receive additional communication node pairing information from the communication network based on a time interval (Antonio et al. teaches that gateway sends BMM periodically (col., 8, lines 55-67)).
Regarding Claims 11 and 17, Claims 11 and 17 are directed to computer medium and apparatus claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim 1. Therefore, claims 11 and 17 are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18, the combined teachings of Antonio et al. and Lu et al. teach The electronic device of claim 17, and further, the references teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive the communication node pairing information in a configuration process prior to the first communication cycle (Antonio et al. teaches BMM is transmitted to the user terminal, and the user terminal periodically measures a strength of each beam identified in the BMM (col. 3, lines 13-20), indicating that BMM is received prior to the signals from the primary communication node transmitted during the first communication cycle and measured), the configuration process comprising pairing the primary communication node with the secondary communication node (Antonio et al. teaches that BMM comprises beams from satellite 1 and satellite 2 (FIG. 6A)).
Regarding Claim 21, the combined teachings of Antonio et al. and Lu et al. teach The user equipment of claim 1, and further, the references teach wherein the primary communication node and the secondary communication node each comprises a satellite (Antonio et al. teaches that that BMM comprises beam identifiers where each identifies a satellite/beam pair (col. 9, lines 4-10; FIG. 6A)).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonio et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6208858), Lu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0219604), and further in view of Lim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0114566).
Regarding Claim 5, the combined teachings of Antonio et al. and Lu et al. teach The user equipment of claim 1, and further, the references teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the receiver to receive the one or more signals from the primary communication node during the first communication cycle (Antonio et al. teaches that the user terminal measures the beam strength of each beam identified in the most recent BMM received from the gateway, and the user terminal measures a beam strength by measuring the amount of energy in a pilot signal associated with the beam (col. 9, lines 11-17)).
However, the references do not explicitly teach the one or more signals comprising a preamble and a broadcast interval. Lim et al. teaches such a limitation.
Lim et al. is directed to error control method, medium access control (MAC) frame designing method, and terminal registration method in wireless communication system, and recording medium. More specifically, Lim et al. teaches that a MAC frame includes a broadcast interval carrying a preamble (para. [0060]; FIG. 10).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UE of Antonio et al. and Lu et al. so that the signals comprising a preamble and a broadcast interval, as taught by Lim et al. The modification would have allowed the system to adaptively allocate time and frequency resources according to the channel status (see Lim et al., para [0006]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonio et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6208858), Lu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0219604), Lim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0114566), and further in view of Shibata (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0294568).
Regarding Claim 6, the combined teachings of Antonio et al., Lu et al., and Lim et al. teach The user equipment of claim 5, and further, the references teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to decode the preamble and the broadcast interval of the one or more signals (Lim et al. teaches that a MAC frame includes a broadcast interval carrying a preamble (para. [0060]; FIG. 10), indicating that such is decoded).
Although teaching a broadcast interval, the references do not explicitly teach the broadcast interval comprising yaw information associated with the primary communication node. Shibata teaches such a limitation.
Shibata is directed to radio device. More specifically, Shibata teaches that the packet signal from another terminal device includes at least position, traveling direction, travel velocity, and yaw rate information of another vehicle (para. [0049])).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UE of Antonio et al., Lu et al., and Lim et al. so that the broadcast interval comprising yaw information associated with the primary communication node, as taught by Shibata. The modification would have allowed the system to determine relative relation between two devices (see Shibata., para [0006]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonio et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6208858), Lu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0219604), Lim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0114566), Shibata (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0294568), and further in view of Lucky et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0245614).
Regarding Claim 7, the combined teachings of Antonio et al., Lu et al., Lim et al., and Shibata teach The user equipment of claim 6, and further the references teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the reverse beam of the primary communication node based on a reverse beam identifier detected based on the one or more signals (Antonio et al. teaches that determining the new active beam set based on the PSMM (FIG. 5A, step 512)).
Although teaching that the packet signal from another terminal device includes the yaw information (Shibata, para. [0049]), thus would detect reverse beam identifier based on the yaw information, the references do not explicitly teach the reverse beam identifier being detected based on the yaw information associated with the primary communication node. Lucky et al. teaches such a limitation.
Lucky et al. is directed to neighbor cell list. More specifically, Lucky et al. teaches a user terminal receiving a neighbor cell list that includes a start angle and span for at least one satellite, and identifying a target beam based on the neighbor cell list (para. [0267]). Further, Lucky et al. teaches that at least one start angle and span are for at least one yaw angle, and that the identification of the target beam includes searching for at least one cell associated with at least one satellite (para. [0267]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UE of Antonio et al., Lu et al., Lim et al., and Shibata so that the reverse beam identifier being detected based on the yaw information associated with the primary communication node the primary communication node, as taught by Lucky et al. The modification would have allowed the system to reselect if the current beam/cell becomes weak (see Lucky et al., para [0050]).
Claims 8-10, 12-13, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonio et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6208858), Lu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0219604), and further in view of Hart et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20020061730).
Regarding Claim 8, the combined teachings of Antonio et al. and Lu et al. teach The user equipment of claim 1, however, the references do not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive a fourth indication of communication quality based on a relative positioning between the user equipment and the primary communication node or the secondary communication node. Hart et al. teaches such a limitation.
Hart et al. is directed to multi-beam TDMA satellite mobile communications system. More specifically, Hart et al. teaches that as each satellite 4a, 4b generates an array of beams at different angles, the angular position of the mobile terminal relative to a satellite is determined by identifying the beam in which the return signal is detected (para. [0060]). Further, Hart et al. teaches that earth station analyzes the received signals to determine which is of better quality (para. [0034]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UE of Antonio et al. and Lu et al., so that the fourth indication of communication quality is received based on a relative positioning between the user equipment and the primary communication node or the secondary communication node, as taught by Hart et al. The modification would have allowed the system to select the better of two signals resulting in smooth handover (see Hart et al., para [0012][0033]).
Regarding Claim 9, the combined teachings of Antonio et al., Lu et al., and Hart et al. teach The user equipment of claim 8, and further, the references teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the relative positioning based on a location of the primary communication node or the secondary communication node, a location of the user equipment, and an orientation of the user equipment (Hart et al. teaches that as each satellite 4a, 4b generates an array of beams at different angles, the angular position of the mobile terminal relative to a satellite is determined by identifying the beam in which the return signal is detected (para. [0060]); doppler shift of the signal is measured to determine the angle of the mobile terminal relative to the direction of motion of the satellite {para. [0060])).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UE of Antonio et al. and Lu et al., so that the relative positioning based on a location of the primary communication node or the secondary communication node, a location of the user equipment, and an orientation of the user equipment is determined, as taught by Hart et al. The modification would have allowed the system to select the better of two signals resulting in smooth handover (see Hart et al., para [0012][0033]).
Regarding Claim 10, the combined teachings of Antonio et al., Lu et al., and Hart et al. teach The user equipment of claim 9, and further, the references teach wherein the relative positioning comprises an elevation angle of the secondary communication node relative to the user equipment (Hart et al. teaches that the elevation angle of the satellite 4a with respect to the centre Ca becomes undesirable for reliable communication (para. [0077]); the communication link between the terminal and any one satellite becomes weaker as the elevation angle of the satellite decreases and ultimately the link becomes inoperable as the satellite moves out of sight of the terminal (para. [0002])).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UE of Antonio et al. and Lu et al., so that the relative positioning comprises elevation angle of the secondary communication node relative to the user equipment, as taught by Hart et al. The modification would have allowed the system to select the better of two signals resulting in smooth handover (see Hart et al., para. [0012][0033]).
Regarding Claim 12, the combined teachings of Antonio et al. and Lu et al. teach The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 11, and further, the references teach wherein the communication node pairing information comprises a first communication node identifier associated with the primary communication node (Antonio et al. teaches that BMM includes satellite 1 (FIG. 6A)), a first set of beam identifiers associated with a first set of beams emitted by the primary communication node (Antonio et al. teaches that BMM includes beam identifier (FIG. 6A)), a second communication node identifier associated with the secondary communication node (Antonio et al. teaches that BMM includes second satellite (FIG. 6A)), a second set of beam identifiers associated with a second set of beams emitted by the secondary communication node (Antonio et al. teaches that BMM includes beam identifiers of second satellite (FIG. 6A)).
However, the references do not explicitly teach and beam status information comprising one or more of the first set of beam identifiers corresponding to the one or more non-functional reverse beams. Hart et al. teaches such a limitation.
Hart et al. is directed to multi-beam TDMA satellite mobile communications system. More specifically, Hart et al. teaches that if the selected return link provides only a weak signal, as in the case of multipath fading, the earth station communicates this information to the mobile terminal (para. [0090]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medium of Antonio et al. and Lu et al., so that the communication pairing information comprises beam status information comprising one or more of the first set of beam identifier corresponding to the one or more non-functional reverse beams, as taught by Hart et al. The modification would have allowed the system to select the better of two signals resulting in smooth handover (see Hart et al., para. [0012][0033]).
Regarding Claim 13, the combined teachings of Antonio et al., Lu et al., and Hart et al. teach The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 12, and further, the references teach wherein the instructions cause the processing circuitry to synchronize with the primary communication node in the first communication cycle based on the first communication node identifier (Antonio et al. teaches at least one communication link between the user terminal and a gateway initially exists. (col. 8, lines 50-53); the handoff process begins with UE periodically (e.g., every 60 seconds) receiving Beam Mask Message (BMM) from the gateway via the current active beam set (primary communication node/satellite) until the determination step for new active beam set, indicates the first communication cycle communication with the primary node (Fig. 10, col. 13, lines 43-48); Hart et al. teaches the timing of transmission of the return packets T is synchronized by the mobile terminal 18 with the timing of the reception of the forward packets R. (Fig. 6; para. [0057]); forward packets R alternating with the return packets T in the frame F (sequentially progressing in time)(para. [0057]); the terminal communicating with the initial selected satellite until alternative link is selected, indicates a first communication period (cycle) and second communication period (cycle) with the alternate link (para. [0090]) and synchronize with the secondary communication node in the second communication cycle based on the second communication node identifier (Hart et al. teaches the terminal communicating with the initial selected satellite until alternative link is selected, indicates the terminal synchronizes and communicates to the second node when (i.e. at a later time, second cycle) current link is determined as weak (non-functional) (para. [0090]); Antonio et al. teaches identifying second communication node, For example, if the BMM identifies three different satellites that are all visible to the user terminal, the PSMM will contain at least three beam identifiers, indicates the reception of second communication node identifier (Fig 7, col. 10, line 35); Antonio et al. teaches the handoff process begins with UE periodically (e.g., every 60 seconds) receiving Beam Mask Message (BMM) from the gateway via the current active beam set (primary communication node/satellite) until the determination step for new active beam set (Fig. 10, col. 13, lines 43-48); if the new active beam set is different than the current active beam set, the gateway will send an HDM to the user terminal, indicates new beams to be used in during second communication cycle after HDM) (col. 13, lines 42-55)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medium of Antonio et al. and Lu et al., so that synchronizing with the primary communication node in the first communication cycle based on the first communication node identifier, and synchronize with the secondary communication node in the second communication cycle based on the second communication node identifier, as taught by Hart et al. The modification would have allowed the system to select the better of two signals resulting in smooth handover (see Hart et al., para [0012][0033]).
Regarding Claim 22, the combined teachings of Antonio et al. and Lu et al. teach The user equipment of claim 1, however, the references do not explicitly teach comprising a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver that is configured to determine a global position of the user equipment based on GNSS signals received from a GNSS network comprising the primary communication node and the secondary communication node. Hart et al. teaches such a limitation.
Hart et al. is directed to multi-beam TDMA satellite mobile communications system. More specifically, Hart et al. teaches that each mobile terminal 18 may include Global Positioning System (GPS) hardware for determining the position of the mobile terminal 18, this indicates UE determining the position as referred in instant application (para. [0032]); GNSS signals may be received from a Global Positions System (GPS) network to determine a global position of the user equipment (para. [0062]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Antonio et al. and Lu et al., so that a global navigation satellite system receiver that is configured to determine a global position of user equipment based on GNSS signals received from a GNSS network comprising the primary communication node and the secondary communication node, as taught by Hart et al. The modification would have allowed the system to select the better of two signals resulting in smooth handover (see Hart et al., para [0012][0033]).
Regarding Claim 24, the combined teachings of Antonio et al. and Lu et al. teach The electronic device of claim 17, and further, the references teach receive an additional indication that the secondary communication node is accessible based on the communication node pairing information and the location of the electronic device (Antonio teaches For example, if the BMM identifies three different satellites that are all visible to the user terminal, the PSMM will contain at least three beam identifiers and at least three corresponding beam strength values, where each one of the at least three identifiers identifies a beam from a different one of the three satellites (Fig 7, col. 10, lines 34-40); after receiving a PSMM from the user terminal, the gateway determines a new active beam set (step 512). The new active beam set is the set of beams that should be used as communication links between the gateway and the user terminal, thus accessible (col. 10, line 65-col. 11, line 2); Fig. 4A-4D illustrates satellite/beam pair coverage based on the relative position (location) of the satellite and the user (col. 8, line 12-23)), and cause the transceiver to synchronize with the secondary communication node for the second communication cycle based on the additional indication (Antonio et al. teaches identifying second communication node, e.g., if the BMM identifies three different satellites that are all visible to the user terminal, the PSMM will contain at least three beam identifiers, indicates the reception of second communication node identifier (Fig 7, col. 10, lines 27-40); the handoff process begins with the gateway periodically (e.g., every 60 seconds) sending a BMM (contains beam/satellite identifiers) to the user terminal (Fig. 10, col. 13, lines 43-48). This indicates when a usable second node identified in a subsequent time (second cycle), the second return link synchronizes with second node).
However, the references do not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: receive a location of the electronic device. Hart et al. teaches such a limitation.
Hart et al. is directed to multi-beam TDMA satellite mobile communications system. More specifically, Hart et al. teaches that each mobile terminal (user equipment) includes Global Positioning System (GPS) hardware for determining its position (para. [0062]); since the positions of the satellites 4 and of the mobile terminal 18 are known, the passage of the mobile terminal through the beams projected by any of the satellites 4 is entirely predictable and this information may obviously therefore be used to determine when handover is to take place, and to which beam (para. [0096]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Antonio et al. and Lu et al., so that the processing circuitry is configured to receive a location of the electronic device, as taught by Hart et al. The modification would have allowed the system to select the better of two signals resulting in smooth handover (see Hart et al., para [0012][0033]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonio et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6208858), Lu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0219604), Lim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0114566), and further in view of Hart et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20020061730).
Regarding Claim 19, the combined teachings of Antonio et al. and Lu et al. teach The electronic device of claim 18, and further, the references teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to, and determine the reverse beam in the third indication based on a reverse beam identifier (Antonio et al. teaches that BMM includes beam identifier (FIG. 6A), which would enable determining the reverse beam in active beam set).
However, the references do not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to decode a preamble and a broadcast interval of the one or more reception signals to obtain yaw information associated with the primary communication node. Lim et al. teaches such limitations.
Lim et al. is directed to error control method, medium access control (MAC) frame designing method, and terminal registration method in wireless communication system, and recording medium. More specifically, Lim et al. teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to decode a preamble and a broadcast interval of the one or more reception signals to obtain yaw information associated with the primary communication node (Lim et al. teaches that a MAC frame includes a broadcast interval carrying a preamble (para. [0060]; FIG. 10), which will be decoded when received).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UE of Antonio et al. and Lu et al. so that the signals comprising a preamble and a broadcast interval, as taught by Lim et al. The modification would have allowed the system to adaptively allocate time and frequency resources according to the channel status (see Lim et al., para [0006]).
However, the references do not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to decode a preamble and a broadcast interval of the one or more reception signals to obtain yaw information associated with the primary communication node, the reverse beam identifier being determined corresponding to the uplink beam of the primary communication node based on the yaw information. Hart et al. teaches such a limitation.
Hart et al. is directed to multi-beam TDMA satellite mobile communications system. More specifically, Hart et al. teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to decode a preamble and a broadcast interval of the one or more reception signals to obtain yaw information associated with the primary communication node (Hart et al. teaches as each satellite generates an array of beams at different angles, the angular position of the mobile terminal relative to a satellite is determined by identifying the beam in which the return signal is detected (para. [0060]); the doppler shift of the signal is measured to determine the angle of the mobile terminal relative to the direction of motion of the satellite (para [0060])), the reverse beam identifier being determined corresponding to the uplink beam of the primary communication node based on the yaw information (Hart et al. teaches as each satellite 4a, 4b generates an array of beams at different angles, the angular position of the mobile terminal 18 relative to a satellite is determined by (indicates orientation, yaw like information) identifying the beam in which the return signal 3 is detected. (FIGS. 1,2, para. [0060]); the mobile terminal communicates with earth station during allocated time slots within a repeating time frame via first and second beam of one satellite, at pairs of frequencies (para. [0084]; FIG. 10)[Examiner’s Note: receive beam and the transmit beam of the same satellite operates in one frequency, thus determining one would determine the corresponding the other direction]; the mobile terminal 18 monitors the pilot signals during the calls so that, if another satellite comes into view, the mobile terminal 18 communicates this information to the earth station and further transmit and receive time slots are allocated to the other satellite (para. [0089])).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medium of Antonio et al., Lu et al., and Lim et al., so that the reverse beam identifier being determined corresponding to the uplink beam of the primary communication node based on yaw information, as taught by Hart et al. The modification would have allowed the system to select the better of two signals resulting in smooth handover (see Hart et al., para [0012][0033]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonio et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6208858), Lu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0219604), and further view of LI et al. (US 20220015058 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, the combined teachings of Antonio et al. and Lu et al. teach The electronic device of claim 18, and further, the references teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine a communication hub identifier associated with the secondary communication node based on the communication node pairing information (Antonio et al. teaches one base station 112, two satellites 116 and 118, and two associated gateways or hubs 120 and 122 are shown for effecting communications with two remote user terminals 124, 126, and 128. (FIG. 1, col. 6, line 5); the gateway transmits a Beam Mask Message (BMM) to the user terminal over the established communication link(s). The BMM contains a list of beam identifiers (col. 8, line 55); FIG. 6A illustrates an exemplary BMM 600. As shown in FIG. 6A, BMM 600 consists of a list of beam identifiers 602-614. Beam identifiers 602-614 each identify a satellite/beam pair (col. 9, line 5)), determine a time delay and a frequency shift (Antonio et al. teaches that user terminal employs a precorrection element in the transmission path to adjust the frequency of the outgoing signal. This can be accomplished using well known techniques of up- or down-conversion of the transmission waveform. User terminal employs a precorrection element in the transmission path to adjust the timing of the outgoing signal. This can be accomplished using well known techniques of adding or subtracting delay in the transmission waveform (col. 15, lines 17-25)), and cause the transceiver to transmit the one or more transmission signals to the secondary communication node based on the time delay and the frequency shift (Antonio et al. teaches that user terminal employs a precorrection element in the transmission path to adjust the frequency of the outgoing signal. This can be accomplished using well known techniques of up- or down-conversion of the transmission waveform. User terminal employs a precorrection element in the transmission path to adjust the timing of the outgoing signal. This can be accomplished using well known techniques of adding or subtracting delay in the transmission waveform (col. 15, lines 17-25)).
Although Antonio teaches BMM 600 (node pairing information) identify a satellite/beam pair (Fig. 6A) that are connected to associated gateway (Fig. 1), the references do not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine a communication hub identifier associated with the secondary communication node based on the communication node pairing information. Li et al. teaches such a limitation.
LI et al. is directed to method and device for positioning configuration and reporting. More specifically, LI et al. teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine a communication hub identifier associated with the secondary communication node based on the communication node pairing information (LI et al. teaches that the NTN ID includes a satellite ID, the NTN beam ID includes a satellite beam ID, and the NTN gateway ID includes an ID of a terrestrial gateway connected to a satellite (para. [0016]). This indicates association of the hub identifier (gateway ID) with the communication nodes included in the node pairing information)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the electronic device of Antonio et al. and Lu et al., providing with the IDs for the non-terrestrial networks reference points as taught by LI et al. The modification would have allowed the system to improve the efficiency and expand the coverage of wireless interfaces. [LI et al., para. [0007])
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antonio et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6208858), Lu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0219604), and further view of Yu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0014581).
Regarding Claim 23, the combined teachings of Antonio et al. and Lu et al. teach The user equipment of claim 1, however, the references do not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause the receiver to receive one or more reception signals from the primary communication node during the second communication cycle. Yu et al. teaches such a limitation.
Yu et al. is directed to dynamic time division duplex (DTDD) access for satellite RAN. More specifically, Yu et al. teaches that first satellite communicates the downlink signal and a different satellite (i.e., second satellite) communicates the uplink signal (para. [0022]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the UE of Antonio et al. and Lu et al., so that the receiver is configured to receive one or more reception signals from the primary node during the second communication cycle, as taught by Yu et al. The modification would have allowed the system to avoid TDD TRx collision completely (Yu et al., para. [0022]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 REBECCA E. SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3667. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8-5 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, Deborah Reynolds can be reached at 571-272-0734. 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.
/REBECCA E SONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2417
