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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection, Xie (CN 111866842 A) (Machine Translation).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2-5, 10, 13, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2018/0076877 A1) in view of Shrestha et al. (US 2022/0353794 A1) in further view of Xie (CN 111866842 A) (Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1 & 16, Liu discloses the method and apparatus, comprising:
receiving, by a processor of a user equipment (UE), broadcast information from a network indicating a plurality of tracking area codes (TACs) for the network (see tracking area codes is broadcast in [0031]); and
determining (see determined, [0051] and also see “the group identification (e.g., tracking area code) for the selected candidate access point may be compared ”, wherein ‘compared’ is determination), by the processor, one or more candidate TACs (see candidate access point for tracking area [0051]), including at least a first TAC, best representing a current geographical location (see [0010], “tracking area code for a candidate donor access point may be compared to a criteria”) of the UE from the plurality of TACs received (TAC received via broadcast [0031])
Lui does not specifically disclose however Shrestha discloses the following;
by removing zero, one or more TACs of the plurality of TACs (“TAC …removed”, [0057], see figure 4, where TAC 1 is removed, at time t3, see illustration of fig. 4 below)
from consideration based on the broadcast information received from the network over time (see [0057] “broadcast” received a particular time t3, thus received over time);
PNG
media_image1.png
805
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Shrestha with that of Lui. Doing so would improve coverage and improve utilization.
Lui in view of Shrestha does not specifically disclose however Xie discloses wherein the one or more candidate TACs representing the current geographical location of the UE are determined by the UE (see bottom of page 11, “terminal device determines the target TAC .., so as to add the target TAC to the TAC forbidden list. ”, hence it is effectively removed.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Xie with that of Lui and Shrestha. Doing so would conform to well-known techniques in the field of invention.
Regarding claims 2 & 17, Lui in view of Shrestha discloses the method of claim 1 and apparatus of claim 16, wherein the receiving of the broadcast information comprises: receiving an older broadcast information at a first time indicating a first non-terrestrial coverage with a first set of one or more TACs (see broadcast with tracking area [0045]); and receiving a latest broadcast information at a second time after the first time indicating a second non-terrestrial coverage with a second set of one or more TACs (see broadcast message and periodically, wherein this indicates more than one or additional broadcasts representing a second).
Regarding claims 3 & 18, Lui in view of Shrestha discloses the method of claim 2 and apparatus of claim 17, wherein the determining comprises: identifying no TAC or one or more TACs of the plurality of TACs received as not representing a tracking area of the current geographical location of the UE (see tracking area code [0010]); identifying no TAC or one or more TACs as unlikely representing the tracking area of the current geographical location of the UE (see compared to a criteria [0010]); and selecting a TAC from remaining one or more TACs of the plurality of TACs as best representing a current geographical location of the UE after removing the one or more TACs from consideration (see criteria, [0010]).
Regarding claim 4, Lui in view of Shrestha discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the identifying no TAC or one or more TACs of the plurality of TACs as not representing the tracking area of the current geographical location of the UE comprises identifying no TAC or one or more TACs of the plurality of TACs as not representing the tracking area of the current geographical location of the UE responsive to at least one TAC being in an earlier received set of one or more TACs but not in a latest received set of one or more TACs (see [0135], “For example, group identifications for access nodes 110 and 112 and small cells 131 and 133 may be compared to a donor criteria, where group identifications for access points with wireless backhauls do not meet the donor criteria.”).
Regarding claim 5, Lui in view of Shrestha discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the identifying of no TAC or one or more TACs of the plurality of TACs as unlikely representing the tracking area of the current geographical location of the UE comprises identifying at least one TAC of the plurality of TACs as not representing the tracking area of the current geographical location of the UE responsive to the identified at least one TAC being in a later received set of one or more TACs but not in an earlier received set of one or more TACs (see [0135], “For example, group identifications for access nodes 110 and 112 and small cells 131 and 133 may be compared to a donor criteria, where group identifications for access points with wireless backhauls do not meet the donor criteria.”).
Regarding claim 10, Lui in view of Shrestha discloses the method of claim 6; further comprising: updating, by the processor, a historical record for the first TAC by incrementing a count of occurrences of the first TAC responsive to the historical record already existing for the first TAC (see [0010], “the tracking area code for a candidate donor access point may be compared to a criteria”).
Regarding claim 13, Lui in view of Shrestha discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: transmitting, by the processor, an indication to the network indicating the one or more candidate TACs as best representing the current geographical location of the UE (see [0010], “criteria”).
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.
Claim(s) 6, 11-12, 15 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Shrestha in further view of Byun et al. (US 2020/0329439 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Lui discloses the method of claim 3;
However Liu in view of Shrestha does not explicitly disclose however Byun discloses wherein the selecting of the one or more candidate TACs, including at least the first TAC, best representing the current geographical location of the UE comprises choosing the one or more candidate TACs based on one or more historical records (see [0078], “history”, regarding tracking area identifier) of previously received broadcast TAC information including records of at least the older and the latest received broadcast information (see history [0078]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Byun with that of Liu. Doing so would conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Regarding claim 11, Lui discloses the method of claim 6;
However Liu in view of Shrestha does not explicitly disclose however Byun discloses, further comprising: deleting, by the processor, a historical record for a second TAC responsive to the second TAC not being among the plurality of TACs (see history [0010]).
Regarding claim 12, Lui discloses the method of claim 6;
However Liu in view of Shrestha does not explicitly disclose however Byun discloses, further comprising: updating, by the processor, a historical record for a second TAC by resetting a count of occurrences of the second TAC responsive to the second TAC not being among the plurality of TACs (see history, [0078]).
Regarding claim 15, Lui discloses the method of claim 13;
However Liu in view of Shrestha does not explicitly disclose however Byun discloses, wherein the indication comprises a Last Visited Registered tracking area identifier (TAI) (see TAI, [0076]).
Regarding claim 19, Lui discloses the method of claim 18;
However, Liu in view of Shrestha does not explicitly disclose however Byun discloses, wherein the one or more historical records indicate one or more TACs received most often among other TACs of the remaining one or more TACs and without interruption in prior serving cells successively up to and including a current serving cell (see Hisotry, [0078]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Byun with that of Liu. Doing so would conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2018/0076877 A1) in view of Shrestha in view of Han et al. (US 2021/0099921 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Lui in view of Shrestha discloses the method of claim 13,
Lui in view of Shrestha does not specifically disclose however Han discloses wherein the indication is included in a registration message transmitted to the network (see registration include a tracking area list that may indicate using a tracking area code, [0189]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of invention to combine the teachings of Han with that of Liu and Shrestha. Doing so would conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 & 20 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K. WILFORD SHAHEED whose telephone number is (469) 295-9175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 am-6pm; CST; ALT Friday. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The examiner’s Supervisor, Jinsong Hu, can be reached at (571)272-3965, where attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/KHALID W SHAHEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights