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 §103
1. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
2. Claims 1,3,7 9,11,15 and 17-18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. 2024/0236820 to Sugiyama in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2021/0068013 to Cheng and U.S. Pat. 12,058,582 to Chen.
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17 Sugiyama teaches a method comprising:
determining, by an end device, that a first criterion to invoke a first search of a non-terrestrial network is satisfied (Figs. 1-3, which show a UE on a terrestrial network (TN) cell, receiving non-terrestrial network (NTN) cell information and see Fig. 4 steps 418, 422 and sections [0050] to [0052] and [0063], which teach that UE has poor signal quality on the TN and then searches for NTN);
performing, by the end device, the first search (see step 422 section [0063]);
establishing, by the end device, a connection to the non-terrestrial network (see step 422 and section [0063], which teaches the UE attaching to the NTN network).
Regarding the last three steps of claim 1, Cheng teaches:
performing, by the end device after the establishing, a second search for a terrestrial network (see Fig. 5 and sections [0065] to [0078], which teach that the UE is now camped on a first network NTN cell (after being released from the TN network as discussed in the background sections [0022]), the UE uses its location and network priority to instigate a second search to obtain a TN, which is steps 502-512);
connecting, by the end device, to the terrestrial network (see step 512, after scanning and finding a TN, the UE reconnects to the TN); and
releasing, by the end device, the connection to the non-terrestrial network (see section [0065], which teaches that connections are released upon selecting the other type (TN or NTN) of network).
Regarding the first steps of Claim 1, Cheng also teaches similar features:
determining, by an end device, that a first criterion to invoke a first search of a non-terrestrial network is satisfied (see section [0022], which teaches that UE has poor signal quality and then searches for NTN and see sections [0055], [0065] and [0078]);
performing, by the end device, the first search (see section [0022], which teaches that the only available network is NTN);
establishing, by the end device, a connection to the non-terrestrial network (see section [0022], which teaches the UE attaching to the NTN network).
Therefore, as described above, as the steps above are mapped to the background section of Cheng (and the disclosure of Cheng relates to procedures after selecting the NTN network), the remainder of the steps of claim 1 are mapped to the embodiments of Cheng (where the remaining steps of claim 1 would be considered as obvious to do in view of the background and teachings within Cheng, i.e. search for the other type of network based on priority of network and/or loss of signal on that type of network).
Regarding the amendment to claims 1, 9 and 17 now reciting:
selecting, by the end device based on the first search, to establish a connection with the non-terrestrial network based on resource utilization criteria of the end device that pertains to an architecture of the non-terrestrial network, Chen is added.
In an analogous art, Chen teaches a wireless system which searches for ground based and satellite networks. As found in claim 1 of Chen, the mobile device receives system information from different types of satellite network architectures (LEO or GEO), where each type of network has a power threshold to ensure that the mobile device does not select cells/types of networks it does not have the battery power to transmit signals to which can reach the altitude of those different types of satellite networks. See for example, column 2, lines 46-50, which teach that if the terminals uplink transmit power is below a required threshold, the cell is not camped on and is abandoned.
Therefore, as all of Sugiyama, Cheng and Chen search for both types of networks (TN and NTN), and as Chen teaches that the selection of NTN networks is based on power (resource utilization) and the type of architecture (LEO or GEO type) of NTN network, it would have been obvious to modify the Sugiyama/Cheng combination to include the network selection using power/resource and network type/architecture criteria of Chen, for the reasons as described in Chen (as higher altitude satellite networks will require more power, which should not be selected if the mobile terminal does not have the battery power to reach that altitude).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, which recite “wherein the first criterion is satisfied based on a failure to connect to one or more candidate terrestrial networks”, as described above, see the cited sections of Sugiyama and section [0022] of Cheng, which teach when the UE fails to connect to a TN, an NTN is searched for, as recited.
Regarding claims 7, 15 and 18, which recite “wherein the architecture includes a stationary satellite device”, see claim 1 of Chen, which teaches a geostationary satellite, as recited.
Claims 2, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 1, 9 and 17 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2010/0054205 to Kalhan and 2019/0007894 to Subramanian.
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 19, which recite “wherein the resource utilization criteria include a processor utilization and a battery utilization”, although Chen would implicitly include these features, Skinner is added to more explicitly teach processor and battery usage.
In an analogous art, Skinner teaches a system which searches for wireless networks. As found in the abstract and as described with reference to the steps shown in Fig. 5 (column 8, lines 29-36) the main processor is in sleep mode to conserve power until an appropriate network cell signal is found. See also for example, column 8, line 58 to column 9, line 10), which teaches a low power mode for the processor which extends battery life.
Therefore, as all of Sugiyama/Cheng/Chen teaches that the selection of NTN networks is based on power (resource utilization) and the type of architecture (LEO or GEO type) of NTN network, and as Skinner explicitly teaches considering both processor and battery utilization when searching for networks, it would have been obvious to modify the Sugiyama/Cheng/Chen combination to include the network selection using processor and battery criteria of Skinner, for the reasons as described in Skinner.
Claims 4-6, 8, 12-14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claims 1,9 and 17 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2010/0054205 to Kalhan and 2019/0007894 to Subramanian.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, which recite “wherein the first search is performed according to a first search configuration that indicates a first set of one or more radio frequency bands associated with a first scanning interval and a first number of attempts, and a second set of one or more other radio frequency bands associated with a second scanning interval and a second number of attempts”, see sections [0021] to [0022] of Cheng, which teach using frequencies f1 and f2 for TN networks and f3 for NTN networks, see sections [0033], [0041] to [0044], and [0065] to [0070] for searching frequency priorities and configurations sent by the networks for searching the frequency bands and see sections [0029] to [0031] of Sugiyama, which teach searching the frequencies. Therefore, as Sugiyama and Cheng do not teach the recited “intervals” and “number of attempts” per se, Kalhan and Subramanian are added.
In an analogous art both Kalhan and Subramanian teach adjusting network scanning and searching parameters. As described in sections [0035], Kalhan teaches receiving a search message from the network which includes adjustments for frequencies searched, search intervals, time periods between searches etc. Regarding the feature of the “number of search attempts” see the scanning rules 234 in Fig. 2, and step 306 in Fig. 3 and sections [0030] and [0048] of Subramanian, which teach a “scan iteration count” and see sections [0022] to [0024] and [0034], which teach changing the scanning count based on the type of network searched for and see step 420 in Fig. 4 which “updates the scanning pattern based on the scanning results”.
Therefore, as Sugiyama and Cheng teach different search frequencies for the type of network (TN and NTN, the recited “first and second searches”) and as Kalhan teaches changing scanning intervals and Subramanian teaches adjusting scan counts, it would have been obvious to modify the Sugiyama and Cheng combination to include the scanning parameters discussed in Kalhan and Subramanian, as all these references teach adjusting network scanning/searching parameters for a variety of reasons, such as based on saving battery power and using search history and machine learning to optimize the searching process.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, which recite “wherein the first scanning interval differs from the second scanning interval”, as described above, as Kalhan and Subramanian teach adjusting network scanning/searching parameters for a variety of reasons, such as type of network and using the search history and machine learning to optimize the searching process, the combination of references would teach and/or render obvious this feature, as recited.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, which recite “wherein the first scanning interval includes multiple and different scanning intervals that differ among the radio frequency bands of the first set”, as described above, as Kalhan and Subramanian teach adjusting the network scanning/searching frequency parameters and as Sugiyama teaches that different NTN satellites may or may not be available (based on their location and the location of the UE), and each NTN may use different frequency, the combination of references would teach and/or render obvious this feature, as recited.
Regarding claims 8, 16 and 20, which recite “wherein the first search is performed according to a first search configuration that indicates a first set including a first scanning interval and a first number of attempts, and a second set including a second scanning interval and a second number of attempts, wherein the first scanning interval and the second scanning interval are different”, as described above with respect to claim 4, and as Kalhan teaches changing scanning intervals and as Subramanian teaches adjusting scan counts, the combination of references would teach and/or render obvious this feature, as recited.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are now moot because of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN SHAUN KELLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5652. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays to Fridays.
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, Matt Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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.
/STEVEN S KELLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646