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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 9/10/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 7 are amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/10/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 7/17/2025 and 8/13/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on 9/10/2025 are entered for prosecution. Claims 1-7 remain pending in the application. The amendments change the scopes of the previously presented claims. New grounds of rejections are applied to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 4-7 (pages 5-8) in a reply filed 9/10/2025 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are based on newly changed limitations in the amendment and new ground of rejections using newly introduced references or a newly introduced portion of an existing reference are applied in the current rejection.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata (EP 1059826 A1, hereinafter Murata) in view of Benammar et al. (US 10,805,850 B1, hereinafter Benammar).
Regarding claim 1:
Murata teaches a communication control apparatus (see, Murata: Fig. 1 and Fig 2., Mobile Communication Unit) comprising:
an overlapping area identification unit (see, Murata: Fig. 2, Satellite State Monitor 19 and Decision Circuit 20) that identifies an overlapping area of a terrestrial communication cell provided on the ground by a terrestrial base station installed on the ground and a non-terrestrial communication cell provided on the ground by a flying non-terrestrial base station (see, Murata: Fig. 9 and para. [0008], “The mobile communication unit comprises a state monitor for monitoring the services of the satellite-based communication system, a memory in which information about the service area of the cellular communication system is stored, a decision mean for making a decision as to whether the location of the unit itself is within the service area of the cellular communication system based on the information stored in the memory, if the state monitor detects deterioration of the state of the services of the satellite communication system, and a switching controller. If the result of the decision made by the decision mean is that the location of the unit itself is outside the cellular service area, the switching controller maintains the services of the satellite communication system. If the location of the unit itself is within the cellular service area, the switching controller switches the reception from the services of the satellite communication system to the services of the cellular communication system. In this way, the services of the satellite communication system is continued until it is confirmed that the present location of the unit itself is within the service area of the cellular communication system. This assures that the connection is switched between the two communication systems. Furthermore, the continuity of the communications services offered to users is assured. In addition, wasteful power consumption produced when the reception is switched can be reduced greatly.”; para. [0009], “The decision circuit described above makes a decision as to whether the location of the unit itself is within the selected service area.”);
a connectability judgment unit (see, Murata: Fig. 2, Decision Circuit 20) that makes a connectability judgment (see, Murata: para. [0040], “The decision mean 20b makes a decision based on the connection information stored in the memory 17b as to whether the present location of the unit itself is in a connected location or in an unconnected location.”); and
a connection control unit (see, Murata: Fig. 2, Switching Controller 21) that causes the communication device to be connected to other base station that is judged to be connectable by the connectability judgment unit (see, Murata: para. [0040], “The main controller 22b controls switching done by the switching controller 21 according to the result of the decision made by the decision mean 20b”), wherein the communication control apparatus is a gateway (see, Murata: Fig. 3, Fig. 9, and para. [0054], “Information about the service areas of the cellular communication system is sent from the cellular communications systems to the satellite communication system through the aforementioned gateway exchange station 27 between the communication systems.”; Abstract and para. [0008], wherein the mobile communication unit of Murata can be a ground station (such as a satellite gateway) that acts as the point of connection between terrestrial networks and satellites, which is equivalent to the communication control apparatus of the instant application.).
Murata does not explicitly teach wherein making a connectability judgment to an other base station of the terrestrial base station and the flying non-terrestrial base station for a communication device connected to one base station of the terrestrial base station and the flying non-terrestrial base station in the overlapping area, wherein causing the communication device to be connected to the other base station that is judged to be connectable, when the communication device in the overlapping area cannot be connected to the one base station, wherein in response to the communication device being detected to be connected to the terrestrial base station, the connectability judgement unit makes the connectability judgment to the flying non-terrestrial base station as the other base station, and wherein in response to the communication device being detected to be connected to the flying non-terrestrial base station, the connectability judgement unit makes the connectability judgment to the terrestrial base station as the other base station.
In the same field of endeavor, Benammar teaches wherein making a connectability judgment to an other base station of the terrestrial base station and the flying non-terrestrial base station for a communication device (e.g., user terminal (UT)) connected to one base station of the terrestrial base station and the flying non-terrestrial base station in the overlapping area (i.e., UT connected to either a terrestrial network (TN) or a non-terrestrial network (NTN)), wherein causing the communication device to be connected to the other base station that is judged to be connectable (i.e., UT connected to a TN is to be connect to an NTN or UT connected to an NTN is to be connected to a TN), when the communication device in the overlapping area cannot be connected to the one base station (see, Benammar: Claim 1: “… sending, to the UT via the first network, a handover order for obtaining service from the second network; and establishing, via a second network RAN (Radio Access Network), a service for the UT via the second network per the handover order, wherein the first network comprises either a Terrestrial Network (TN) or a Non-Terrestrial Network (NTN), the second network comprises other of the TN or the NTN, and the TN and the NTN are RF networks, wherein the establishing is performed while the UT is disposed in an overlap area of the first coverage area and the second coverage area, …”; Col. 6, lines 57-59, “A trigger to initiate a handover of a UT 206 from the NTN to the TN may be generated before NTN radio link failure, imminent NTN radio link failure. The trigger may use a UT location provided by the UT location service 210.”; Col. 7, lines 54-57, “A trigger to initiate a handover of a UT 306 from the TN to the NTN may be generated before TN radio link failure, imminent TN radio link failure. The trigger may use a UT location provided by UT location service 310.”), wherein in response to the communication device being detected to be connected to the terrestrial base station, the connectability judgement unit makes the connectability judgment to the flying non-terrestrial base station as the other base station (see, Benammar: Fig. 3, Handover from TN to NTN; Col. 7, lines 43-57.), and wherein in response to the communication device being detected to be connected to the flying non-terrestrial base station, the connectability judgement unit makes the connectability judgment to the terrestrial base station as the other base station (see, Benammar: Fig. 2, Handover from NTN to TN; Col. 6, lines 47-60.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Murata in combination of the teachings of Benammar in order to serve the UT without interruption, pause, or replication over the first network and the second network (see, Benammar: Col. 1, line 65 – Col. 2, line 16).
Regarding claim 4:
As discussed above, Murata in view of Benammar teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Benammar further teaches wherein the connectability judgment unit makes the connectability judgment to the flying non-terrestrial base station for the communication device connected to the terrestrial base station in the overlapping area, and the connection control unit causes the communication device to be connected to the flying non-terrestrial base station that is judged to be connectable by the connectability judgment unit, when the communication device in the overlapping area cannot be connected to the terrestrial base station (see, Benammar: Col. 7, lines 54-57, “A trigger to initiate a handover of a UT 306 from the TN to the NTN may be generated before TN radio link failure, imminent TN radio link failure. The trigger may use a UT location provided by UT location service 310.”).
Regarding claim 5:
As discussed above, Murata in view of Benammar teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Murata further teaches wherein the flying non-terrestrial base station (e.g., satellite station) is a communication satellite flying in outer space (see, Murata: para. [00521], “a satellite station 32 receives information about the service areas of a cellular communication system from a satellite communication base station of a satellite communication system and routes the information to cells such as 32a-33g forming the service areas of the satellite communication system. The cells 33a-33g and other (not shown) are formed by the satellite station 32 and move as the satellite station 32 moves. While only one satellite station 32 is shown in Fig. 9, many satellite stations are placed in an orbit around the earth and form numerous cells that provide global coverage. The cellular communication system has service areas 34a and 34b partially overlapping with the satellite communication cells 33a and 33g, respectively.”).
Regarding claim 6:
Claim 6 recites the method which corresponds to the communication control apparatus of claim 1 (see, Murata: Fig. 3, Gateway 27), and contains no additional limitations. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7:
Claim 7 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable storage device (see, Murata: Fig. 3, Gateway 27 & Memory) storing a communication control program causing a computer to perform: the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata in view of Benammar further in view of Son et al. (US 9,986,470 B2, hereinafter Son).
Regarding claim 2:
As discussed above, Murata in view of Benammar teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Murata in view of Benammar does not explicitly teach wherein making the connectability judgment of the communication device to the other base station at a fixed or variable frequency and updates the connectability judgment result.
In the same field of endeavor, Son teaches wherein making the connectability judgment of the communication device to the other base station at a fixed or variable frequency and updates the connectability judgment result (see, Son: Claim 1, “A method for performing a handover by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: transmitting, to a first node, a first measurement report message while being provided a communication service from the first node using a first frequency band, the first measurement report message including measurements for the first node and at least one other node using a different frequency band than the first frequency band, and first identifier (ID) information including at least one of a beam ID and a sector ID detected for the first node, the at least one other node being included in a handover candidate node list managed by the UE; receiving, from the first node, a first handover preparation request message requesting the UE to transmit a second handover preparation request message including an internet protocol (IP) address of the UE to a second node determined from among the at least one other node based on the first measurement report message; transmitting, to the second node, the second handover preparation request message to proceed with authentication for the handover from the first node to the second node; receiving, from the second node, a first response message in response to the second handover preparation request message including an IP address of the second node; determining whether the handover is necessary; transmitting, to the first node, a second measurement report message while being provided the communication service from the first node using the first frequency band, the second measurement report message including measurements for the first node and the at least one other node, and second ID information including at least one of the beam ID and the sector ID detected for the first node, if the handover is not necessary; and receiving, from the first node, an update request message for requesting an update of the handover candidate node list if the second ID information is different from the first ID information, and updating the handover candidate node list.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Murata in view of Benammar in combination of the teachings of Son in order for the UE to prepare and update handover candidate node list based on the measurement results on a fixed or a different frequency band in case the UE needs to perform a handover to a different node (see, Son: Claim 1).
Regarding claim 3:
As discussed above, Murata in view of Benammar teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Murata in view of Benammar does not explicitly teach wherein the communication control apparatus further comprising a connection establishment information retention unit that retains the connection establishment information that establishes the connection between the communication device and the other base station, when the communication device is judged to be connectable to the other base station by the connectability judgment unit, wherein the connection control unit causes the communication device to be connected to the other base station based on the connection establishment information retained by the connection establishment information retention unit, when the communication device in the overlapping area cannot be connected to the one base station.
In the same field of endeavor, Son teaches wherein the communication control apparatus (see, Son: Fig. 2, UE 100) further comprising a connection establishment information (e.g., handover candidate node list) retention unit (see, Son: Fig. 2, Memory 230) that retains the connection establishment information that establishes the connection between the communication device and the other base station, when the communication device is judged to be connectable to the other base station by the connectability judgment unit (see, Son: Fig. 2, Controller 210) (see, Son: Claim 1, “A method for performing a handover by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: transmitting, to a first node, a first measurement report message while being provided a communication service from the first node using a first frequency band, the first measurement report message including measurements for the first node and at least one other node using a different frequency band than the first frequency band, and first identifier (ID) information including at least one of a beam ID and a sector ID detected for the first node, the at least one other node being included in a handover candidate node list managed by the UE; receiving, from the first node, a first handover preparation request message requesting the UE to transmit a second handover preparation request message including an internet protocol (IP) address of the UE to a second node determined from among the at least one other node based on the first measurement report message; transmitting, to the second node, the second handover preparation request message to proceed with authentication for the handover from the first node to the second node; receiving, from the second node, a first response message in response to the second handover preparation request message including an IP address of the second node; determining whether the handover is necessary; transmitting, to the first node, a second measurement report message while being provided the communication service from the first node using the first frequency band, the second measurement report message including measurements for the first node and the at least one other node, and second ID information including at least one of the beam ID and the sector ID detected for the first node, if the handover is not necessary; and receiving, from the first node, an update request message for requesting an update of the handover candidate node list if the second ID information is different from the first ID information, and updating the handover candidate node list.”, wherein the handover candidate node list is equivalent to the connection establishment information of the instant application.), wherein the connection control unit causes the communication device to be connected to the other base station based on the connection establishment information retained by the connection establishment information retention unit (see, Son: “… perform handover to a second node having a greatest measurement among the at least one other node, with the second node if a handover preparation request message is received from the first node.”).
Son does not explicitly teach wherein causing the communication device to be connected to the other base station, when the communication device in the overlapping area cannot be connected to the one base station. However, Benammar teaches wherein causing the communication device to be connected to the other base station, when the communication device in the overlapping area cannot be connected to the one base station as discussed in claim 1 above.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Murata in view of Benammar in combination of the teachings of Son in order for the UE to perform a handover to one of the nodes in the handover candidate node list when the first network becomes no longer available (see, Son: Claim 1 and Benammar: Col. 1, line 65 – Col. 2, line 16).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, ET.
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, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (571) 272-8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights