Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 1-5, 12-14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. However, the claims will be given a broad reasonable interpretation for the purposes of examination as best understood.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 103 as being unpatentable over Gao US 20210344413 in view of Amerga US 20020115448
Claim 1. A wireless communication method, applied to a terminal and comprising:
sending communication capability information of the terminal to a base station (Goa: [0050-0051, 0063] send capability information that includes a parameter setting. This capability information may characterize or identify which communications are supported by the UE), wherein the communication capability information is used at least for indicating whether the terminal has a communication capability of communicating with a satellite (Goa: [0050-0053, 0063] As noted above, the parameter setting may be any of: a supported one or more RTTs (e.g., a maximum RTT or a RTT for different bands), supported satellite system types, supported satellite system identifiers (IDs), and/or supported bands).
Amerga further teaches wherein establishing a connection with a neighboring base station preferentially in response to not receiving connection information sent from the base station within a set time period, after sending the communication capability information, wherein the connection information is information used for establishing a connection between the terminal and the satellite (Amerga: fig. 4, 12, [0059-0061, 0065-0067, 0009, 0042, table 1 [0069-0070, 0110-0111]- search windows – e.g., the signal strength for the transmission received from the base station is likely to be stronger),
in response to determining that dense neighboring base stations are deployed in vicinity of the base station and the neighboring base stations are located close to the terminal, no connection information is sent (Amerga: table 1 [0065-0067, 0069-0070, 0050, 0110-0111] - weaker signal strength for a received multipath corresponds to a higher likelihood that the signal has been bounced around): and
establishing a connection with the satellite using the connection information in response to receiving connection information sent from the base station within the set time period, wherein the connection information is sent in a case that the number of base stations deployed near the base station is less than a set value and a detected wireless communication signal strength is poor (Amerga: fig. 11 [0103-0105] - instructs the remote terminal to search for GPS satellites using the generated search windows).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the above recited limitation into Goa’s invention in order to coordinate and facilitate the communication between the remote terminals within its coverage area, as taught by Amerga.
Claim 2. (Original) The method according to claim 1, further comprising: receiving connection information of at least one satellite sent by the base station with respect to the communication capability information; establishing a communication connection with the satellite based on the connection information (Goa: [0066] - the BS may then select a single RTT from the multiple possible RTTs).
Claim 3. (Original) The method according to claim 2, wherein the connection information comprises at least one of:
an identifier ID of the satellite;
trajectory information, for indicating a trajectory of the satellite;
flight speed information, for indicating a flight speed of the satellite; and
signal coverage information, for indicating signal coverage of the satellite (Goa: [0050-0053, 0063]).
Claim 4. (Original) The method according to claim 1, wherein said sending communication capability information of the terminal to a base station comprises: sending the communication capability information of the terminal to the base station using radio resource control RRC signaling (Goa: [0064]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao US 20210344413 Amerga US 20020115448 further in view of Vaidya US 20220007440
Claim 5. The method according to claim 4, wherein the RRC signaling is user equipment new radio capability signaling, UE-NR-Capability signaling, or user equipment evolved Universal Mobile Communication System Terrestrial Radio Access Capability signaling, UE-EUTRAN-Capability signaling (Vaidya: [0028, 0105-0106] - UE NR-Capability) in order to provide the parameter(s) of interest (e.g., NMR) in RRC signaling between the UE and gNB, including in some cases coupling with a subscription-based solution.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the above recited limitation into Goa’s invention in order to provide the parameter(s) of interest (e.g., NMR) in RRC signaling between the UE and gNB, including in some cases coupling with a subscription-based solution.
Regarding claims 12-14, 20 the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 1-5, where the difference used is a “terminal & NTCRM” with a processor and a memory (Goa: referring to FIG. 2, the device 204 includes a processor 236, a memory 234 [0025]) and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims arid interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 12-14, 20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Remark:
The examiner stresses that the claims are too broad and require detail or specialization of the steps as recited in the claims. Alone and as claimed, the limitations are too open.
Examiner has cited particular portions of the references as applied to each claim limitation for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Regarding all other arguments presented by applicant, the arguments are substantially the same as those which have already been addressed above and in the interest of brevity; the Examiner directs the applicant to those responses above.
In addition, an interview could expedite the prosecution.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sulaiman Nooristany whose telephone number is 571-270-1929. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday: 8:30am to 5:00pm (EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. 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. 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.
/SULAIMAN NOORISTANY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415