CTNF 18/166,434 CTNF 66989 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of either one of U.S. Pubs. 2021/0127325 to Shih or 2021/0289404 to Tseng in view of 2022/0078746 to Lee and 2024/0080758 to Yavuz . Regarding claims 1 and 20, Shih and Tseng teach an apparatus for communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory, the at least one processor is configured to: receive, from at least one cell, a system information block (SIB) comprising a tracking area code or a tracking area list, the tracking area list being associated with a non-terrestrial network (NTN) and the at least one cell, the tracking area code being associated with a terrestrial network (TN) or the NTN; and skip, based on the tracking area code being absent and the tracking area list being present or both the tracking area code and the tracking area list being absent in the SIB, a selection of the at least one cell for subsequent communication (regarding Shih, see the Abstract and sections [0007]-[0008], [0039], [0072]-[0077] for the SIB reception and see section [0179] which teaches that the UE may bar a PLMN which does not have a tracking area code (TAC), and regarding Tseng, see section [0242] for the SIB reception and barring cells which do not have the tracking area code broadcasted in the SIB, as recited). As Shih and Tseng do not explicitly show that the recited network is a satellite network (NTN network) and as Shih and Tseng do not explicitly show a list of tracking area codes within the SIB, Lee is added. In an analogous art, Lee teaches a UE which receives a list of TACs (see Fig. 21 step 21020). Sections [0140] to [0152] teach SIB reception and sections [0303] to [0304], of Lee teaches that an NTN cell is deprioritized if the tracking area code is not included in the received list of multiple TACs. Therefore, as Shih/Tseng teach receiving SIBs with missing TACs (which cause the recited “skipping of cell selection”) and as Lee also teaches receiving SIBs with missing TACs in a list of TACs (which deprioritize an NTN network), it would have been obvious to modify the cell skipping selection of either one of Shih or Tseng with the TAC list and NTN networks of Lee, as all these references teach the conventionality of avoiding networks which do not have TACs, as this is an efficient and easy way to allow network operators to ensure that their cells are barred by unwanted and/or unauthorized devices. Regarding the features of claim 1 as shown below: “receive, from at least one cell, a system information block (SIB) comprising a tracking area list, the tracking area list being associated with a non-terrestrial network (NTN) and the at least one cell, the SIB not including a tracking area code being associated with a terrestrial network (TN) or the NTN, a supported network of the UE corresponding to the TN; and skip, based on the tracking area code being absent and the tracking area list being present, a selection of the at least one cell for subsequent communication”, regarding these features and the “receiving step”, sections [0299] and [0301] of Lee explicitly teach the UE receiving and evaluating the tracking area list (TAI list) and section [0304] explicitly teaches that an NTN network is deprioritized based on the detection that the cell has no tracking area code (TAC) in the received list. Regarding the amendments to claim 1 which now recite: “ receive, from at least one cell, a master information block (MIB) comprising a ssb-SubcarrierOffset parameter indicating the at least one cell is barred from an non-terrestrial network (NTN) access ” and “skip, based on the tracking area code being absent, the ssb-SubcarrierOffset parameter ,...”, Lee teaches in sections [0308]-[0310] of barring the NTN with offset parameters, but not the claimed offset parameter, so Yavuz is added. In an analogous art, Yavuz teaches a UE which receives parameters from an MIB (tables following sections [0094] and [0201]). See sections [0193] to [0202], which describe the table of parameters which include the ssb-Subcarrieroffset and cell barring information, and as also described in section [0201], Yavuz teaches that the above parameters are used to indicate to the UE that the NTN cell is barred, as recited. Therefore, as Shih/Tseng and Lee teach barring or “skipping of NTN cell selection”, and as Yavuz also teaches receiving MIBs which include the now recited ssb-Subcarrieroffset information to bar/skip a NTN cell, it would have been obvious to modify the cell skipping selection of Shih/Tseng and Lee with the ssb-Subcarrieroffset parameter of Yavuz, as all these references teach the conventionality of avoiding NTN networks, and Lee and Yavuz teach that offset parameters are used to indicate to the UE that the NTN cell is barred. Regarding claims 14 and 30, which recite similar features as claim 1 (but from the perspective of a base station (BSs) broadcasting the SIB (not the UE receiving the SIB in claim 1)), see the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claims 2 and 29, which recite “wherein the UE is barred from selecting the at least one cell for the subsequent communication for a time period, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: select the at least one cell for the subsequent communication after the time period”, see Shih, section [0242] of Tseng and see sections [0305]-[0311] of Lee for barring the NTN cell for a certain time period, as recited. Regarding claims 3 and 21, which recite “wherein the UE is barred from selecting the at least one cell for the subsequent communication for a duration of the UE storing first information about barring access to the at least one cell, and the first information about barring the access to the at least one cell comprises at least one of a physical cell identifier (PCID) or a frequency of the at least one cell”, see sections [0070]-[0078] of Shih, which teach “barring for the duration”, and see section [0135] of Lee for the PCID, as recited. Regarding claims 4 and 22, which recite “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: perform cell reselection for one or more other cells on a same frequency of the at least one cell”, as all of Shih, Tseng and Lee teach using designated frequency bands (see sections [0184], [0194] of Shih and sections [0234] and [0266] of Lee), the references would teach the cell reselection processes on the same frequency, as recited. Regarding claims 5 and 23, which recite “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: perform cell reselection at least based on an indication for cell reselection provided in a master information block (MIB)”, see the Abstract and sections [0007]-[0008], [0073]-[0079], [0185], [0203] and [0208] and of Shih, which teach the MIB, as recited. Regarding claims 6 and 24, which recite “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: perform cell reselection at least based on an indication for cell reselection provided in a SIB type 1 (SIB1), wherein the SIB1 is the SIB”, see the Abstract and sections [0007]-[0008], [0039], [0072]-[0077], [0088]-[0091], [0151]-[0155], [0185] and [0203]-[0204] and of Shih, which teach the SIB1, as recited. Regarding claim 7, which recites “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: select, based on the tracking area list in the SIB, the at least one cell for the subsequent communication”, as described above in the rejection of claim 1, the combination of Shih or Tseng in view of Lee would “select a cell based on the tracking area list”, as recited. Regarding claim 8, which recites “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: skip, based on an absence of a registered tracking area in the tracking area list in the SIB, the at least one cell for the subsequent communication”, as described above in the rejection of claim 1, the combination of Shih or Tseng in view of Lee would “skip selecting a cell based on the absence of a TAC in the tracking area list”, as recited. Regarding claim 9, which recites “wherein a supported network of the UE corresponds to the TN”, the supported networks in Shih or Tseng and Lee would “correspond to a terrestrial network “TN”, as recited. Regarding claims 10, 15 and 25, which recite “wherein the tracking area code is associated with a network type of the at least one cell”, see for example, sections [0040] to [0049] of Shih, where the types of cell/networks are 5G and/or SNPN or CAG and see sections [0072] to [0078] of Tseng for similar types of networks (SNPN), as recited. Regarding claims 11, 16 and 26, which recite “wherein the tracking area code is associated with a physical location area associated with the at least one cell”, see for example, sections [0278]-[0284] of Lee, which teach that cells are grouped into tracking areas which correspond to geographical and/or a physical location, as recited. Regarding claims 12, 18 and 28, which recite “wherein the tracking area list is associated with a physical location area associated with the at least one cell”, see sections [0278]-[0284] of Lee, which teach that cells are grouped into tracking areas which correspond to geographical and/or a physical location, therefore, a list of these TACs would be associated with a geographical and/or a physical location, as recited. Regarding claim 13, which recites “further comprising at least one of a transceiver or an antenna coupled to the at least one processor, wherein to receive the SIB, the at least one processor is configured to receive the SIB via at least one of the transceiver or the antenna”, see the UEs of Shih or Tseng and Lee, which would have a transceiver and antenna, as recited. Regarding claims 17 and 27, which recite “wherein the tracking area list is associated with a network type of the at least one cell”, see the rejection of claims 10-12, which include similar features. Regarding claim 19, which recites “further comprising at least one of a transceiver or an antenna coupled to the at least one processor, wherein to transmit the SIB, the at least one processor is configured to transmit the SIB via at least one of the transceiver or the antenna”, see the base stations of Shih or Tseng and Lee, which would have a transceiver and antenna to broadcast SIBs, as recited. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. 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, Jeanette Parker can be reached at (571)270-3647. 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 Application/Control Number: 18/166,434 Page 2 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/166,434 Page 3 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/166,434 Page 4 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/166,434 Page 5 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/166,434 Page 6 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/166,434 Page 7 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/166,434 Page 8 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/166,434 Page 9 Art Unit: 2646 Application/Control Number: 18/166,434 Page 10 Art Unit: 2646
Prosecution Insights