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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species I (Claims 5, 6, 15 and 16) in the reply filed on 18 September 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-20 are currently pending, though Claims 7-10 and 17-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 21 November 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because element 342 in Figure 3 contains a typo (“acticates”). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 6 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 2, acronym VPLMN should be spelled out on its first recitation.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, the phrase “upon the UE activates” should be amended to “upon the UE activating” or similar phrasing.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4-6 and 11-16 are 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.
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, claim language “system information block (SIB) including SIB-3, SIB-31, or SIB-32” is considered exemplary claim language, which leads to confusion about the intended scope of the claim (i.e., whether there are other SIBs in the group aside from those recited in the claim). Refer to MPEP 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, the claims state “wherein the UE keeps the timer T running with an original time out value and the timer T expires at time t3.” However, independent claims 1 and 11 set forth that “the timer T is configured to expire at time t3”. Therefore, it is unclear how the timer T is “kept” running with if it expires at time t3, as already cited in the parent independent claims. Claims 6 and 16 fail to resolve the deficiencies of parent claims 5 and 15, and are therefore also rejected as being indefinite.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim is directed to a User Equipment (UE) comprising “a timer T”. However, an apparatus claim is defined by its structure, and a review of the claim language and Applicant’s specification indicates that the timer is not reasonably part of the UE’s structure. As shown in Figure 2 and described in paragraph 0025 of the specification, the value for the timer T is stored in memory 202. Therefore, while the memory could be considered as part of the UE’s structure, the timer is a value that is stored in the memory and not a structural component of the UE. As such, Claim 11 is indefinite for failing to clearly claim the structure of the UE. Claims 12-16 fail to resolve the deficiencies of parent Claim 11 and are also rejected as being indefinite.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrestha et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0043459), hereinafter Shrestha, in view of Lu et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0254803), hereinafter Lu.
Regarding Claim 11, Shrestha discloses a User Equipment (UE) (Figure 2, UE 104), comprising:
a registration circuit that registers to a first network in a Non-Terrestrial Networks (NTN) system with discontinuous coverage, wherein the UE is in an automatic network selection mode (Figure 10 and paragraphs 0079-0080, the UE is in communication with the NTN (i.e., registered) with discontinuous coverage and the UE can communicate with both a terrestrial-based base station for certain transmission and an NTN for other transmissions (i.e., “automatic network selection mode”);
a timer T that is started at time t1 for attempting to obtain service from a … network, wherein the timer T is set to expire at time t3 (paragraph 0082 – the UE may initiate a reachable timer for a power-saving mode (PSM) when the UE expects to be in an in-coverage state with the NTN);
a control circuit that determines that the UE is out of coverage at time t2 that is before time t3, and in response the UE deactivates access stratum functions for power saving at time t2 (paragraphs 0080-0082 – the UE determines that it will be in an out-of-coverage state (at a time prior to the expiry of the PSM timer) for a particular NTN and enters the PSM); and
a network selection circuit that triggers an attempt to obtain service from the … network at a subsequent time t4 that is later than time t3, and wherein the access stratum functions remain deactivated at time t3 (paragraph 0083 – the UE monitors for a paging signal from the NTN after exiting the power-saving mode (i.e., at a time after the PSM timer ends); paragraph 0090 – the UE can also configure a backoff timer that determines when to send the in-coverage indication to the NTN after existing the PSM).
However, Shrestha does not disclose a second network with a higher priority than the first network. In an analogous art, Lu discloses this. Specifically, Lu discloses an MS in idle mode in a VPLMN (i.e., first network) that periodically searches for a higher priority HPLMN (paragraph 0044). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Shrestha and Lu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to conserve implement idle mode conditions that conserve power consumption during disaster conditions (paragraph 0041 of Lu).
Claim 1 is a method claim comprising the steps performed by the UE of Claim 11. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the same reasoning as presented above for Claim 11.
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, the combination of Shrestha and Lu discloses the first network is a VPLMN, and wherein the second network is a home PLMN (HPLMN) or an equivalent HPLMN (EHPLMN) (Lu paragraph 0044 – a MS in idle mode in a VPLMN (i.e., first network) periodically searches for a higher priority HPLMN). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Shrestha and Lu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to conserve implement idle mode conditions that conserve power consumption during disaster conditions (paragraph 0041 of Lu).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Shrestha discloses the UE keeps the timer T running with an original time out value and the timer T expires at time t3 (paragraph 0082 – the UE may initiate a reachable timer for a power-saving mode (PSM) when the UE expects to be in an in-coverage state with the NTN).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Shrestha discloses the UE triggers the attempt to obtain service from the second network upon the UE activates the access stratum function (paragraph 0083 – the UE monitors for a paging signal from the NTN after exiting the power-saving mode (i.e., upon activating the access stratum function); paragraph 0090 – the UE can also configure a backoff timer that determines when to send the in-coverage indication to the NTN after existing the PSM).
Claims 3, 4, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrestha in view of Lu as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Tseng et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20230047987), hereinafter Tseng.
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, the combination of Shrestha and Lu discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 11, as described above. While Shrestha discloses determining the UE is out of coverage based on information obtained from satellites in the NTN system (i.e., via system information or RRC signaling as in paragraph 0080), the aforementioned references do not disclose ephemeris data broadcasted from satellites in the NTN system. In an analogous art, Tseng discloses this. Specifically, Tseng discloses obtaining ephemeris data broadcast by a serving cell in the NTN (paragraph 0106). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Shrestha/Lu with Tseng. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide the UE with information necessary for the UE to estimate an available time period available in a cell (see paragraph 0069 of Tseng).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, the combination of Shrestha, Lu and Tseng further discloses the ephemeris data is included in system information block (SIB) including SIB-3, SIB-31, or SIB-32 (paragraph 0106 of Tseng – the ephemeris data can be received via SIB3). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Shrestha/Lu with Tseng. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide the UE with information necessary for the UE to estimate an available time period available in a cell (see paragraph 0069 of Tseng).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Agarwal et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20220312173) is directed to selecting a PLMN to receive disaster roaming service.
Ma et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20230111316) is directed to utilizing ephemeris parameters to calculate a satellite motion.
Shrestha et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20230121634) is directed to operating in an idle/inactive/power-saving state based on satellite visit times.
Shen (WIPO Publication 2023087147) is directed to a UE entering PSM in a discontinuous coverage scenario.
Nuggehalli et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20240032139) is directed to discontinuous coverage in NR NTN networks.
Xu et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication is directed to a power saving mode while a UE is in discontinuous coverage.
Shrestha et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20240313854) is directed to paging in discontinuous coverage scenarios.
Catovic et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20240340629) is directed to broadcasting ephemeris (SIB) to UEs from PLMNs.
Chen et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 20240373363) is directed to NAS and RRC states of a UE while out of coverage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472