DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
RCE filed 12/3/2025 is acknowledged, claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravishankar et al. (US20230075345A1), hereafter Ravi, in view of Han et al. (US20240251322A1), hereafter Han.
Regarding claim 1,
Ravi discloses a method (i.e. Fig. 20) for switching routing in a low-earth-orbit satellite network (Fig. 1-3, 112 LEO constellation; paragraph 2), being adapted to a user terminal (Fig. 13B, UT-2; Fig. 19, UT 1910; paragraph 46), comprising generating, by the user terminal, routing information newly originated within the user terminal (paragraph 70; user terminals/UTs update reachability information every time there is a handover) installed into a first routing table of a first satellite under control of the user terminal (Fig. 13B, 1354; HO complete sent to satellites by UT) and a second routing table of a second satellite (Fig. 20, steps 2010-2018; paragraph 44-46, 70-75, 89, 94; routing tables uplinked to multiple LEO satellites 118 based on UT originated reachability updates every time there is a satellite handover for updating satellite IDs/mapping status for direct UT-UT sessions).
Ravi further discloses updating, by the user terminal, the routing information of the first routing table to relay information corresponding to the second satellite (Fig. 13; paragraphs 69-75, 94; updating reachability autonomously updates the routing tables of satellites by piggybacking on satellite handover signaling) and performing, by the user terminal, initiating handover from the first satellite to the second satellite (Fig. 13B, UT-2; paragraphs 74-77, 94; satellite handover executed by UT-2 and completed/reachability updated).
Ravi discloses satellite handover executed by a user terminal, but in response to a request from the satellite (Fig. 13B prior to step 1352) such that Ravi fails to expressly disclose the UT self-initiating handover from the first to second satellite.
Han discloses analogous art (Title: satellite communication handover) including the user terminal self-initiating handover from the first to second satellite (paragraph 52; UE initiates handover autonomously when first and second handover conditions are satisfied; see also Fig. 2-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Ravi by self-initiating handover from the first to second satellite, as shown by Han, thereby ensuring stable, continuous, and reliable communication in a high-speed mobility environment where both the UEs and satellites have high mobility.
Regarding claim 11,
Ravi discloses a user terminal (Fig. 1, 19, 26-27) comprising a transceiver (Fig. 27, communication 2764); a storage medium (Memory 2730); and a processor (Processors 2710) coupled to the transceiver and the storage medium (Bus 2702), configured to generate routing information newly originated within the user terminal (paragraph 70; user terminals/UTs update reachability information every time there is a handover) installed into a first routing table of a first satellite under control of the user terminal (Fig. 13B, 1354; HO complete sent to satellites by UT) and a second routing table of a second satellite (Fig. 20, steps 2010-2018; paragraph 44-46, 70-75, 89, 94; routing tables uplinked to multiple LEO satellites 118 based on UT originated reachability updates every time there is a satellite handover for updating satellite IDs/mapping status for direct UT-UT sessions).
Ravi further discloses update the routing information of the first routing table to relay information corresponding to the second satellite (Fig. 13; paragraphs 69-75, 94; updating reachability autonomously updates the routing tables of satellites by piggybacking on satellite handover signaling) and perform initiating handover from the first satellite to the second satellite (Fig. 13B; paragraphs 74-77, 94; satellite handover executed by UT-2 and completed/reachability updated).
Ravi discloses satellite handover executed by a user terminal, but in response to a request from the satellite (Fig. 13B prior to step 1352) such that Ravi fails to expressly disclose the UT self-initiating handover from the first to second satellite.
Han discloses analogous art (Title: satellite communication handover) including the user terminal self-initiating handover from the first to second satellite (paragraph 52; UE initiates handover autonomously when first and second handover conditions are satisfied; see also Fig. 2-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Ravi by self-initiating handover from the first to second satellite, as shown by Han, thereby ensuring stable, continuous, and reliable communication in a high-speed mobility environment where both the UEs and satellites have high mobility.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 12-15,
The combination of Ravi and Han discloses an identification of the user terminal and a position of the user terminal (Fig. 13A-C; Fig. 24A-C, 25; paragraphs 82-84, 105, 130; position of each identifiable UT1,2 is maintained and used to determine satellite handover based on relative positions of satellites and UTs), as in claims 2, 3, 12, and 13, while also disclosing a first contact time determined according to a flight trajectory model of the first satellite and a position of the user terminal (Fig. 23-25; paragraphs 105-111; predicted events that result in mitigation such as satellite handover based on relative positions of the satellites and UTs at any given time, initiated at T1), as in claims 4, 5, 14, and 15.
Though the combination of Ravi and Han does not expressly disclose this information comprised in the routing information, as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have found it obvious to include this information in the routing information of Ravi and Han in order to optimize satellite handover procedures.
Regarding claims 6, 7, 16, and 17,
The combination of Ravi and Han discloses a second contact time, determined according to a flight trajectory model of the second satellite and a position of the user terminal (Fig. 23-25; paragraphs 105-109; predicted events that result in mitigation such as satellite handover based on relative positions of the satellites and UTs at any given time, including incremented T), in response to the first contact time being reset to zero (i.e. satellite handover from one satellite to another) and updating the routing information according to the second contact time (Fig. 23-25; paragraph 5, 104, 107, 108, 111; event determined from relative position of satellites and user terminal based on position database and satellite ephemeris database). See motivation above.
Regarding claims 8, 9, 18, and 19,
The combination of Ravi and Han discloses the relay information comprises a waiting time (Fig. 25, step 2512, paragraph 77, 88; delay between user terminals during satellite handover; estimated delay to reach adjacent node) and re-counting the waiting time in response to routing corresponding to the relay information being triggered during the waiting time (Fig. 25, step 2514 “yes”; paragraph 42, 99, 104-107).
Though the combination of Ravi and Han does not expressly disclose this information comprised in the relay information, as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have found it obvious to include this information in the relay information of Ravi and Han in order to optimize satellite handover procedures.
Regarding claims 10 and 20,
The combination of Ravi and Han discloses removing the relay information from the first routing table in response to routing corresponding to the relay information not being triggered during the waiting time (Fig. 25, step 2514; paragraph 112; no event determined causes no resolution requiring satellite handover).
Though the combination of Ravi and Han removing the relay information, as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would have found it obvious to remove the relay information from the routing table when no event is detected requiring satellite handover in Ravi and Han in order to optimize satellite handover procedures.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on additional citations from Ravi and newly-cited Han reference for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. 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.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477