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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/13/26 has been entered.
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 .
Claims 56-59 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
For example, applicant alleges the cited art of record fails to disclose newly added limitations to claims 34, 42, 50 and 52 wherein the reconfiguration comprises a switch of a service link supporting the beam from a source satellite to a target satellite without changing a physical cell identity of a cell served by the beam”
First, with regard to claims 34, 42, 50 and 52 limitation “without changing a physical cell identity of a cell served by the beam”. Examiner asserts "Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure…”.(see below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 34, 42, 50 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. “wherein reconfiguration comprises a switch of a service link supporting the beam from a source satellite to a target satellite without changing a physical cell identity of a cell served by the beam,...”. The Specification as originally filed does not discuss nor explain how the negative limitations of “… a switch of a service link supporting the beam from a source satellite to a target satellite without changing a physical cell identity of a cell served by the beam,...”. "Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure…”.
The inventive entity recites “a switch of a service link supporting the beam from a source satellite to a target satellite without changing a physical cell identity of a cell served by the beam,...”.
Applicant’s specification does not recite performing the claimed invention " a switch of a service link supporting the beam from a source satellite to a target satellite without changing a physical cell identity of a cell served by the beam,...”. " (precluding) the claimed/amended limitation as recited in the amended claims recited above.
MPEP 2173.05 (i) states:
"Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1019, 194 USPQ 187, 196 (CCPA 1977) ("[the] specification, having described the whole, necessarily described the part remaining."). See also Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983), aff 'd mem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement."
The amended phrase clearly recites a negative limitation. Indeed, the specification/disclosure must contain a full, clear and concise description of the claimed subject matter. The specification does not show switching a service link supporting the beam from a source satellite to a target satellite without changing a physical cell identity of a cell served by the beam,...”.
Second, newly cited reference MÄÄTTANEN disclose switching source satellite to a target satellite without changing a physical cell identity of a cell served by the beam(see par. 0072, switching that preserves physical cell identity of a cell, when switching from source satellite or the one or more satellites 106 ).This teachings of MÄÄTTANEN enables the UE to use the provided information to adapt its radio measurements in conjunction with the link changes and is also an effective “automation” of the timed changeover by the UE to new measurement configurations, coincident with the occurrence of link changes.
Ulupinar discloses wherein reconfiguration comprises a switch of a service link supporting the beam from a source Satellite to a target satellite, wherein the beam serves the same cell before and after the switch of the service link(see par. 0091-0093, 0123, 0256, where an inter-satellite handoff is described where a UT is handed-off from the current serving satellite (referred to as the source satellite) to another satellite (referred to as the target satellite). For example, a UT may be handed-off to the target satellite as the source satellite moves away from the UT and the target satellite moves toward the UT.).
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 34-36, 38-40, 42-44 and 46-48, 50-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iana Siomina U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0337497[hereinafter Siomina] in view of Ulupinar et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0323032[hereinafter Ulupinar] and further in view of MÄÄTTANEN et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210400556 [hereinafter MÄÄTTANEN].
As per claim 34, 42, 50 and 52 Siomina discloses a method performed by a wireless device configured for use in non-terrestrial wireless communication network, the method comprising:
receiving, from a network node in the wireless communication network, signaling that indicates reconfiguration of a beam serving the wireless device(par. 0174-0175); and
based on the signaling, reacquiring time and/or frequency synchronization for the beam, to account for the indicated reconfiguration of the beam(see par 0076, signals/channels are transmitted via a beam by the transmitting node and can be received and used by a radio node for performing synchronization (e.g., time and/or frequency synchronization, synchronization to a cell, or synchronization to a beam)
Siomina does not explicitly disclose wherein reconfiguration comprises a switch of a service link supporting the beam from a source Satellite to a target satellite, wherein the beam serves the same cell before and after the switch of the service link (see par. 0104 where UT can support two satellites at the same time. A different number of satellites (e.g., three or more) could be supported in other implementations(that is beam serves the same cell before and after the switch of the service link )
Ulupinar discloses wherein reconfiguration comprises a switch of a service link supporting the beam from a source Satellite to a target satellite, wherein the beam serves the same cell before and after the switch of the service link(see par. 0091-0093, 0123, 0256, where an inter-satellite handoff is described where a UT is handed-off from the current serving satellite (referred to as the source satellite) to another satellite (referred to as the target satellite). For example, a UT may be handed-off to the target satellite as the source satellite moves away from the UT and the target satellite moves toward the UT.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ulupinar into the system of Siomina as this mechanism enables a same beam to cover a particular geographic region within the footprint, when a UT is handed-off from the current serving satellite (referred to as the source satellite) to another satellite (referred to as the target satellite).
The system of Siomina -Ulupinar does not explicitly disclose switching source satellite to a target satellite without changing a physical cell identity of a cell served by the beam .
MÄÄTTANEN disclose switching source satellite to a target satellite without changing a physical cell identity of a cell served by the beam(see par. 0072, switching that preserves physical cell identity of a cell, when switching from source satellite or the one or more satellites 106 ).Therefore, Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of MÄÄTTANEN into the system of Ulupinar into the system of Siomina -Ulupinar, as this enable the UE use the provided information to adapt its radio measurements in conjunction with the link changes. Among the several advantages is the effective “automation” of the timed changeover by the UE to new measurement configurations, coincident with the occurrence of link changes.
as per claim 35, and 44 Siomina discloses the method of claim 34, wherein the signaling indicates a change in a reference location of the beam, wherein the reference location is a location which serves as a common reference for time and/or frequency synchronization(see par. 0015, 0021).
As per claim 36, Ulupinar the method of claim 34 wherein the signaling indicates a change in an ephemeris of a satellite providing the beam. (i.e. the position of the satellite in the sky at given times)(see par. 0092, 0121).
As per claim 38, Ulupinar discloses the method of claim 34, wherein the signaling is broadcasted to wireless devices served by the beam(see par. 0067, 0121)
As per claim 39, and 46 Ulupinar discloses The method of claim 34, wherein the reconfiguration: changes a footprint of and/or elevation angle of the beam(see par. 0004); and/or comprises a reconfiguration of a gain or pointing direction of an antenna providing the beam.(see par. 0046).
As per claim 40, and 47 Siomina discloses the method of claim 34, further comprising transmitting or receiving a transmission on the beam based on the reacquired time and/or frequency synchronization for the beam(see par. 0075-0076).
As per claim 43, Ulupinar discloses the method of claim 42, wherein the signaling indicates a value of a beam activity timer that controls when the beam is to be reconfigured with a default configuration(see par. 0159)exp, wherein the beam activity timer is to be started or restarted with the indicated value upon performing downlink reception or uplink transmission on the beam using a non- default configuration of the beam, and wherein beam is to be reconfigured with the default configuration responsive to expiration of the timer(see par. 0159, where before the expiration of the specified time in the satellite and beam transition table, the UT enters into RLF mode. In RLF mode, the UT may attempt to find an alternate beam or satellite (e.g., based on the ephemeris information at the UT). For example, the UT may attempt to connect to the next satellite that should be serving the UT.
As claims 48, Ulupinar discloses The method of claim 42, wherein reconfiguration of the beam changes a configuration of the beam from an old configuration to a new configuration, and wherein the method further comprises: simultaneously transmitting the beam with the old configuration and transmitting the beam with the new configuration; and steering the wireless device to connect to the beam with the new configuration (see par. 0159,).
As per claims 54 and 55 Ulupinar discloses the method of claim 34, wherein the signaling indicates that the reconfiguration of the beam is to occur at or after a certain time(see par. 0256, where for example, at a particular point in time, the circuit/module for performing handoffs 2222 can use the information in Table 1 to determine whether the user terminal should switch to a different satellite beam. As another example, triggers may be set up at beam/satellite transitions times (e.g., frame numbers) indicated in Table 1. In order to reconfigure communication parameters to cause communication with an SNP to be conducted via the identified satellite and beam)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAHI ELMI SALAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4009. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-6: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, Faruk Hamza can be reached on 571-272-7969. 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.
/ABDULLAHI E SALAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466