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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/04/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 15, 18, and 22-23, 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. The phrase “in the case that” implies that there are other “cases” in which the embodiment of the invention may still be performed. For example, claims 15 and 22 state “in the case that the Srxlev of the serving cell is greater than the first threshold value and the Squal of the serving cell is greater than the second threshold value…” By leaving open an implication for other cases which the invention can embody, Applicant has not adequately defined the metes and bounds by which the invention is being claimed and as such, Examiner rejects the above stated claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 15, 19-21, 23-25, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da SIlva et al. (2023/0107443), hereinafter Da Silva in view of Dong et al. (2023/0089127), hereinafter Dong.
Re. Claim 15 and 23, Da Silva teaches a terminal in a non-terrestrial network (NTN), the terminal comprising: a transceiver (¶0132 - [T]he communication circuit 130; 230 may include any of the following: a receiver, a transmitter, a transceiver, input/output (I/O) circuitry, input port(s) and/or output port(s)); and a controller coupled with the transceiver (¶0115 - “[N]etwork node” may refer to base stations, access points, network control nodes such as network controllers), the controller is configured to: perform a method comprising: performing measurements of a cell selection reception level value (Srxlev) (¶0317 - s-NonIntraSearchP is the threshold Srxlev value for serving cell, determines whether UE should search for new cell or not) and a cell selection quality value (Squal) for a serving cell (¶0318 - s-NonIntraSearchQ is the threshold Squal value for serving cell, determines whether UE should search for new cell or not); identifying that the serving cell fulfils the Srxlev greater than a first threshold value (¶0256-0257 - If the network is using single carrier frequency, intra frequency reselection shall be performed under the conditions below… Srxlev>SIntraSearchP, neighbouring measurement RSRP does not fall below the threshold) and the Squal greater than a second threshold value (¶0256, ¶0258 - If the network is using single carrier frequency, intra frequency reselection shall be performed under the conditions below… Squal>SIntraSearchQ, neighbouring measurement RSRQ does not fall below the threshold); receiving, a distance threshold value included in a System Information Block (SIB) (¶0147 - In NR the threshold parameters are available in the different SIBs), wherein the SIB is associated with satellite assistance information (¶0154 - SIB2 contains cell re-selection information that is common for intra-frequency, inter-frequency and/or inter-RAT cell re-selection);
Yet, De Silva does not expressly teach identifying a distance between the terminal and a reference location of the serving cell, and the distance threshold value; and performing a cell reselection based on the measurements of at least one neighbor cell.
However, Dong explicitly teaches identifying a distance between the terminal and a reference location of the serving cell (¶0034 - When the terminal performs cell reselection, it performs the cell reselection based on the reference distance of the cell and the actual distance between the terminal and the center of the cell), and performing a cell reselection based on the measurements of at least one neighbor cell wherein the measurements of at least one neighbor cell are not performed in case that the distance threshold value is not transmitted to the terminal (¶0006 – [P]erform cell reselection based on the reference distance threshold and an actual distance between the terminal and a center of the cell. Examiner interprets).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Dong to the teaching of De Silva. The motivation for such would be as Dong provides the concept of a reference distance between the terminal and the cell that, when used with a threshold value, can indicate whether reselection should be performed (Dong ¶0034). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 24, De Silva and Dong teach Claim 23.
Yet, De Silva does not expressly teach wherein the distance between the terminal and the reference location of the serving cell is greater than the distance threshold value.
However, Dong explicitly teaches wherein the distance between the terminal and the reference location of the serving cell is greater than the distance threshold value (¶0079 – [T]he processing unit 102 is configured to perform the cell reselection based on the… actual distance between the terminal and the center of the serving cell… in response to the reference distance threshold of the serving cell being less than the actual distance between the terminal and the center of the serving cell, [the processing unit] select[s] a neighboring cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Dong to the teaching of De Silva. The motivation for such would be as Dong provides that reselection occurs when the distance between the terminal and the current cell exceeds a set value (Dong ¶0079). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re Claims 19 and 27, De Silva and Dong teach Claims 15 and 23.
De Silva further teaches wherein the SIB is broadcast from the serving cell (¶0067 - According to this transmission mode the broadcasted message may be provided by means of a system information block).
Yet, De Silva does not expressly teach wherein the SIB includes ephemeris information.
However, Dong explicitly teaches wherein the SIB includes ephemeris information (¶0071 - The terminal… obtains the ephemeris information (cell location information) from the system broadcast messages).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Dong to the teaching of De Silva. The motivation for such would be as Dong provides that the SIB received by the terminal contains ephemeris information (Dong ¶0071). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 20, De Silva and Dong teach Claim 15.
De Silva further teaches wherein performing the measurements of at least one neighbor cell comprises: performing an intra-frequency measurement (¶0322 - The UE performs intra-frequency measurement… of the serving cell).
Re. Claims 28, De Silva and Dong teach Claims 23.
De Silva further teaches wherein performing the measurements of at least one neighbor cell comprises at least one of: intra-frequency measurements (¶0196 - SIB3 in turn contains cell re-selection information common for intra-frequency, inter-frequency and/or inter-RAT cell re-selection, i.e. applicable for more than one type of cell re-selection but not necessarily all, as well as intra-frequency cell re-selection information other than neighbouring cell related)
Claims 17 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Silva and Dong in view of Wang et al. (2021/0321322), hereinafter Wang.
Re. Claims 17 and 25, De Silva and Dong teach Claims 15 and 23.
Yet, neither De Silva nor Dong explicitly teach wherein the measurements of at least one neighbor cell is not performed in at least one of following cases: the distance threshold value is not transmitted to the terminal; the terminal does not support a location measurement for the terminal; or a location information of the terminal is not obtained.
However, Wang expressly teaches wherein the measurements of at least one neighbor cell is not performed in at least one of the following cases: the terminal does not support a location measurement for the terminal; OR a location information of the terminal is not obtained (¶0033 - In response to the acquirement failure of the SIB of the LTE cell, the UE will start a barring timer which prevents the UE from connecting the LTE cell for a waiting period. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “Or”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Wang to the teaching of De Silva and Dong. The motivation for such would be as Wang provides that the terminal does not need to perform any measurements in the event that it does not receive location information from the cell, rather it can start a timer and wait for the cell to respond (Wang ¶0033). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Examiner’s Comments
Re. Claims 15, 18, 22-23, 26 and 29, De Silva and Dong teach claims 15 and 22.
These above cited claims are reliant on an alternate limitation that Examiner did not elect in their original rejection. Claims 15, 18, 22-23, 26, and 29 refer specifically to “in the case that…”, which Examiner interprets as a contingent limitation not necessary to the fulfillment of the claim language. Pursuant to MPEP 2111.04 II (“Contingent Limitations”) which reads in part:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.
As such, examiner will neither be considering the respective limitations in the present rejection, rejecting the limitations outright, nor be performing an election on behalf of the Applicant in view of future prosecution. Should the limitations no longer be contingent as outlined in the above cited language, the limitations found herein will be considered in their entirety alongside the rest of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that there is no suggestion of an NR inter-frequency cell or an inter-RAT frequency cell or that different threshold criteria are applied for a type of neighbor cell (Pg. 11). Examiner, in response, has provided new arguments regarding the limitations Applicant is arguing. Examiner finds that the limitation beginning in “in the case that…” provides an alternate limitation that is not required to be fulfilled in order to fully embody the invention being claimed. As such, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been provided for the applicable claims as Examiner finds that they have not been defined with adequate metes and bounds in order to allow a person having ordinary skill in the art to replicate the claimed invention. Additionally, the limitations identified as such have not been considered and are not rejected in the present office action. Additionally, Examiner upholds the rejection over all other claimed elements of the application under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the independent claims and all claims depending therein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zheng et al. (2023/0362765) – Fig. 9, ¶0086-0101;
Du et al. (CN 112584451 A) – Fig. 4, ¶0006-0008, ¶0070-0070.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH JAMES SUGDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7406. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00-6:00 ET, Fri 9:00-1:00 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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/N.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/HASHIM S BHATTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights