DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on September 18, 2025. Claims 1-7 and 21-33 are now pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Specification
The amendment filed on September 18, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention by adding claim 21, which recites “wherein an [the] autonomous determination is made without receiving network-directed prioritization parameters.” There is no support in the application as originally filed for the negative limitation excluding receipt of network-directed prioritization parameters. The disclosure of using “locally available information” in paragraph 00037 does not provide written descriptive support for a determination made without receiving such parameters, particularly where the specification elsewhere affirmatively teaches receipt of synchronization signals and cell selection information from network nodes (see paragraphs 00017 and 00035-00037). Because the amendment adds a limitation not supported by the original disclosure, the amendment constitutes impermissible new matter. See 35 U.S.C. § 132(a); MPEP §§ 608.04 2163.06, 2163.06(I), and 2163.07.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 25 are objected to because of the following informality: On line 1 of claims 21 and 25, replace “the” with --an-- in order to provide proper antecedent basis for
“autonomous determination”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 30 claims a computer-readable medium, however, the specification does not positively limit the computer-readable medium to be statutory subject matter (see paragraphs 0013-0015, 0025, and 0026 which refer to examples of computer-readable media in an open-ended and exemplary manner while also explicitly stating that communication media such as modulated data signals or carrier waves are also included within the scope of computer-readable media). Therefore, claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because a claim that covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim when read in light of the specification and in view of one skilled in the art) embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. See the OG Notice titled "Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media".
Claims 31-33 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 30.
An amendment to these claims replacing “computer-readable medium” with --non-transitory computer-readable storage medium-- would overcome this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21, 28, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In the present application, claims 21, 28, and 31 fail to comply with the written description requirement because the originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant had possession, as of the filing date, of the claimed limitation “wherein an [the] autonomous determination is made without receiving network-directed prioritization parameters.” See MPEP §§ 2163 and 2163.06(I). Although the specification discloses that a UE may make a determination using “locally available information” (see, e.g., paragraph 00037) and may prioritize terrestrial nodes during cell selection (see, e.g., paragraphs 00035-00038 and 00047), the specification does not expressly or inherently describe the exclusion of network-directed prioritization parameters, nor does it identify such parameters as optional, unnecessary, or omitted from the determination. To the contrary, the specification describes the UE as receiving synchronization signals and cell selection information from network nodes (see, e.g., paragraphs 00017 and 00035-00037). Accordingly, the negative limitation in claims 21, 28, and 31 lack adequate written descriptive support in the originally filed disclosure. See MPEP § 2173.05(i).
Applicant is welcomed to point out where in the specification the Examiner can find support for these limitations if Applicant believes otherwise.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office Action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 23-27, 30, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Määttänen et al. (US 2023/0319661 A1).
Consider claim 1, Määttänen et al. clearly disclose a system for multi-domain cell selection (in the form of wireless device 110 in figure 6), the system comprising:
one or more antennas configured to wirelessly communicate with a terrestrial base station
and one or more satellites (antenna(s) 111 in figure 6 and paragraphs 0078 and 0132 – wireless device 110 (i.e., UE) has terrestrial network (TN) and non-terrestrial network (NTN) capabilities hence it can wirelessly communicate with a terrestrial base station and one or more satellites via antenna(s) 111); and
one or more computer processing components (see, among other components, interface
114 and processing circuitry 120 that are part of the wireless device 110 in figure 6) configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving a first set of synchronization signals from a first radio access network (RAN)
node (see figures 3, 4, and 10 step 508 and, for example, paragraphs 0025, 0031 lines 1-12, 0078, 0110 lines 1-3, 0186, and 0187 – wireless device 110 receives Synchronization Signal Blocks (SSBs) of one or more cells including cells in different RATs such as a TN RAT (through a base station (read as second RAN node)) and an NTN RAT (through a satellite (read as first RAN node)));
receiving a second set of synchronization signals from a second RAN node (see figures 3, 4, and 6 step 508 and, for example, paragraphs 0025, 0031 lines 1-12, 0078, 0110 lines 1-3, 0186, and 0187 – wireless device 110 receives Synchronization Signal Blocks (SSBs) of one or more cells including cells in different RATs such as a TN RAT (through a base station (read as second RAN node)) and an NTN RAT (through a satellite (read as first RAN node)));
determining that each of the first RAN node and the second RAN node are suitable (see
paragraphs 0010 (which defines what a suitable cell is) and 0180 – where an implication is disclosed that a suitable TN cell (i.e., base station – second RAN node) and NTN cell (i.e., satellite – first RAN node) have been found before the wireless device 110 selects or reselects
one of these cells); and
communicate a registration request to the second RAN node based at least in part on
determination that the first RAN node is associated with a satellite RAN and the second RAN node is associated with a terrestrial RAN (see figure 10 step 510, figure 11 step 608, and paragraphs 0098, 0110, and 0183-0194 – wireless device 110 prioritize and initiates the selection/reselection of the TN cell (i.e., second RAN node in the form of a base station) over the NTN cell (i.e., first RAN node in the form of a satellite)) and at least in part on a determination that one or more key performance indicator (KPI) values of the second set of synchronization signals exceeds a predetermined minimum threshold (see paragraph 0096-0100 - selection/reselection of the TN cell is also at least based on one or more KPI values (i.e., in the form of reference signal receive power (RSRP) and reference signal receive quality (RSRQ)) exceeding a minimum acceptable quality Qmin (i.e., predetermined minimum threshold).
PNG
media_image1.png
364
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
After the selection/reselection is completed, the wireless device is provided with user data hence, it is at the very least implicit or inherent, that some kind of registration request have been communicated to the TN cell by the wireless device 110 in order for the device 110 to be able and allow to receive user data in the new selected/reselected TN cell).
Consider claim 2, and as applied to claim 1 above, Määttänen et al. further disclose wherein determining that the first RAN node is associated with a satellite RAN and the second RAN node is associated with a terrestrial RAN is based on a determination that a first PLMN of the first RAN node is associated with the satellite RAN and that a second PLMN of the of the second RAN node is associated with the terrestrial RAN (see paragraph 0106 where PLMN IDs are being used to prioritized TN cells (i.e., second RAN nodes in the form of base stations) over NTN cells (i.e., first RAN nodes in the form of satellites) hence a determination is being made that a first PLMN is associated with the satellite RAN and a second PLMN is associated with the terrestrial RAN).
Consider claims 3 and 4, and as applied to claim 2 above, Määttänen et al. also disclose wherein a first set of key performance indicator (KPI) values of the first set of synchronization signals is greater than a second set of KPI values of the second set of synchronization signals (see paragraphs 0096-0100 – where the current or best NTN cell is stick to which implies that KPI values of the NTN cell (QNTN) are greater than KPI values of the TN cell (QTN)) and wherein each of the first set of KPI values and the second set of KPI values comprise a reference signal receive power (RSRP) and a reference signal receive quality (RSRQ) (see paragraph 0096 – RSRP and RSRQ are being used).
Consider claim 5, and as applied to claim 4 above, Määttänen et al. further disclose
wherein a delta between the first set of values and the second set of values is less than a predetermined threshold (see paragraphs 0096-0100 - If one or more TN is/are found; and the best of the found TN(s) has a quality QtnBestt > Qntn – TnNtnOffset; and the best of the found TN(s) has a quality QtnBestt > Qmin select the best of the found TN(s); Else if Qntn < Qmin Select the best of the available NTN(s) and TN(s); (Else Stick to the current (or best) NTN.)).
Consider claim 6, and as applied to claim 5 above, Määttänen et al. further disclose wherein the first RAN node is in low earth orbit (see paragraphs 0049, 0050, and 0110 – NTN cell could be from a low earth orbit (LEO) satellite hence the first RAN node could be on a LEO orbit).
Consider claim 7, and as applied to claim 6 above, Määttänen et al. further disclose wherein the one or more computer processing components (see, among other components, interface 114 and processing circuitry 120 that are part of the wireless device 110 in figure 6) are further configured to:
receive a third set of synchronization signals from a third RAN node (see figures 3, 4, and 6 step 508 and, for example, paragraphs 0025, 0031 lines 1-12, 0078, 0110 lines 1-3, 0186, and 0187 – wireless device 110 receives Synchronization Signal Blocks (SSBs) of one or more cells including cells in different RATs such as a TN RAT (through a base station (read as second RAN node)) and an NTN RAT (through a satellite (read as first RAN node)) and when this is read in the context of the example of paragraph 0100 where the current or best NTN cell is stick to, it is implied that synchronization signals are being received from another node (i.e., a third RAN node that could be now the best NTN cell));
determine the third RAN node is suitable (see paragraphs 0010 (which defines what a
suitable cell is) and 0180 – where an implication is disclosed that a suitable TN cell (i.e., base
station – second RAN node) and NTN cell (i.e., satellite – first RAN node) have been found before the wireless device 110 selects or reselects one of these cells and when this is read in the context of the example of paragraph 0100 where the current or best NTN cell is stick to, it is
implied that another node is also suitable (i.e., a third RAN node that could be now the best NTN
cell)); and
determine a third set of KPI values of the third set of synchronization signals is greater than each of the first set of KPI values and the second set of KPI values (see paragraphs 0096-0100 – where the current or best NTN cell is stick to which implies that KPI values of the best NTN cell (i.e., third RAN node) is greater that the KPI values of NTN cell (QNTN) (i.e., current – first RAN node) and the KPI values of the TN cell (QTN) (i.e., second RAN node)).
Consider claim 23, and as applied to claim 1 above, Määttänen et al. also disclose wherein the one or more computer processing components (see, among other components, interface 114 and processing circuitry 120 that are part of the wireless device 110 in figure 6) are further configured to prioritize the first RAN node over the second RAN node when the one or more KPI values of the second set of synchronization signals is below the predetermined minimum threshold (see paragraphs 0096-0100 – where the current or best NTN cell is stick to which implies that KPI values of the NTN cell (QNTN) are greater than KPI values of the TN cell (QTN) (i.e., TN cell is below a minimum acceptable quality Qmin (i.e., predetermined minimum threshold))).
Consider claim 24, and as applied to claim 1 above, Määttänen et al. further disclose wherein the one or more computer processing components (see, among other components, interface 114 and processing circuitry 120 that are part of the wireless device 110 in figure 6) store locally a table associating public land mobile network (PLMN) identifiers with network types to determine whether RAN nodes are associated with terrestrial or satellite RANs (see paragraph 0106 where the UE receives a priority list that includes PLMN IDs used to prioritized TN cells (i.e., second RAN nodes in the form of base stations) over NTN cells (i.e., first RAN
nodes in the form of satellites) hence PLMN IDs with network types are being used to determine whether RAN nodes are associated with terrestrial or satellite RANs and in order for the UE to use this priority list, it must be store locally at the UE in some kind of list or table for later use, reference, and processing to make the proper determination. This interpretation is in accordance with paragraph 00037 of Applicant’s specification as it is the only paragraph in the specification that mentions locally available information. There is no disclosure in paragraph 00037 or in any other paragraphs of the specification of “store locally a table” or even how or when the locally available information is in the UE. The broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and the prior art has been given to this limitation).
Consider claim 25, and as applied to claim 1 above, Määttänen et al. also disclose wherein an autonomous determination comprises processing cell selection information to determine PLMNs associated with each RAN node and using locally available information to determine network types (Applicant’s specification does not mention “autonomous determination” at all, therefore, the plain meaning has been given to this term for interpretation purposes and, in light of it, paragraph 0106 of Määttänen et al. disclose the UE processing cell selection information (e.g., in the form of a priority list) to determine PLMNs associated with each RAN node and using this information to determined network types (i.e., terrestrial or satellite). In order for the UE to use this priority list, it must be store locally at the UE in some kind of list or table for later use, reference, and processing to make the proper determination and since this determination is being done at the UE by the UE, it is considered an autonomous determination. This interpretation is in accordance with paragraph 00037 of Applicant’s specification as it is the only paragraph in the specification that mentions locally available information. There is no disclosure in paragraph 00037 or in any other paragraphs of the
specification of how or when the locally available information is in the UE).
Consider claim 26, and as applied to claim 1 above, Määttänen et al. further disclose wherein the one or more computer processing components (see, among other components, interface 114 and processing circuitry 120 that are part of the wireless device 110 in figure 6) are further configured to utilize modified cell selection criteria that prioritizes selection of terrestrial RAN nodes over satellite RAN nodes (see paragraphs 0096-0100 - If one or more TN is/are found; and the best of the found TN(s) has a quality QtnBestt > Qntn – TnNtnOffset; and the best of the found TN(s) has a quality QtnBestt > Qmin select the best of the found TN(s); Else if Qntn < Qmin Select the best of the available NTN(s) and TN(s); (Else Stick to the current (or best) NTN.). This amounts to utilizing a modified cell selection criteria to prioritize selection of terrestrial RAN nodes over satellite RAN nodes).
Consider claim 27, Määttänen et al. clearly disclose a method for multi-domain cell selection (figures 10 and 11), the method comprising:
receiving, at one or more antennas configured to wirelessly communicate with a terrestrial base station and one or more satellites (antenna(s) 111 in figure 6 and paragraphs 0078 and 0132 – wireless device 110 (i.e., UE) has terrestrial network (TN) and non-terrestrial network (NTN) capabilities hence it can wirelessly communicate with a terrestrial base station and one or more satellites via antenna(s) 111), a first set of synchronization signals from a first radio access network (RAN) node (see figures 3, 4, and 6 step 508 and, for example, paragraphs 0025, 0031 lines 1-12, 0078, 0110 lines 1-3, 0186, and 0187 – wireless device 110 receives Synchronization Signal Blocks (SSBs) of one or more cells including cells in different RATs such as a TN RAT (through a base station (read as second RAN node)) and an NTN RAT (through a satellite (read as first RAN node));
receiving a second set of synchronization signals from a second RAN node ((see figures 3, 4, and 6 step 508 and, for example, paragraphs 0025, 0031 lines 1-12, 0078, 0110 lines 1-3, 0186, and 0187 – wireless device 110 receives Synchronization Signal Blocks (SSBs) of one or more cells including cells in different RATs such as a TN RAT (through a base station (read as second RAN node)) and an NTN RAT (through a satellite (read as first RAN node));
determining that each of the first RAN node and the second RAN node are suitable (see
paragraphs 0010 (which defines what a suitable cell is) and 0180 – where an implication is disclosed that a suitable TN cell (i.e., base station – second RAN node) and NTN cell (i.e., satellite – first RAN node) have been found before the wireless device 110 selects or reselects
one of these cells);
autonomously determining that the first RAN node is associated with a satellite RAN and the second RAN node is associated with a terrestrial RAN using locally available information (Applicant’s specification does not mention “autonomously determining” at all, therefore, the plain meaning has been given to this term for interpretation purposes and, in light of it, paragraph 0106 of Määttänen et al. disclose the UE processing cell selection information (e.g., in the form of a priority list) to determine PLMNs associated with each RAN node and using this information to determined network types (i.e., whether the first RAN node is a satellite RAN or the second RAN node is a terrestrial RAN). In order for the UE to use this priority list, it must be store locally at the UE in some kind of list or table for later use, reference, and processing to make the proper determination and since this determination is being done at the UE by the UE, it is considered to be autonomously determined. This interpretation is in accordance with paragraph 00037 of Applicant’s specification as it is the only paragraph in the specification that mentions locally available information. There is no disclosure in paragraph 00037 or in any other
paragraphs of the specification of how or when the locally available information is in the UE);
communicating a registration request to the second RAN node based at least in part on
the autonomous determination and a determination that one or more key performance indicator (KPI) values of the second set of synchronization signals exceeds a predetermined minimum (see figure 10 step 510, figure 11 step 608, and paragraphs 0098, 0110, and 0183-0194 – wireless device 110 prioritize and initiates the selection/reselection of the TN cell (i.e., second RAN node in the form of a base station) over the NTN cell (i.e., first RAN node in the form of a satellite) and see paragraph 0096-0100 - selection/reselection of the TN cell is also based on one or more KPI values (i.e., in the form of reference signal receive power (RSRP) and reference signal receive quality (RSRQ)) exceeding a minimum acceptable quality Qmin (i.e., predetermined minimum threshold).
PNG
media_image1.png
364
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
After the selection/reselection is completed, the wireless device is provided with user data hence, it is at the very least implicit or inherent, that some kind of registration request have been communicated to the TN cell by the wireless device 110 in order for the device 110 to be able
and allow to receive user data in the new selected/reselected TN cell).
Consider claim 30, Määttänen et al. clearly disclose a computer readable medium (figure 6 – device readable medium 130) storing instructions that, when executed by one or more computer processing components (see, among other components, interface 114 and processing circuitry 120 that are part of the wireless device 110 in figure 6), cause the one or more computer processing components to perform operations (paragraph 0134) comprising:
receiving a first set of synchronization signals from a first radio access network (RAN) node (see figures 3, 4, and 6 step 508 and, for example, paragraphs 0025, 0031 lines 1-12, 0078, 0110 lines 1-3, 0186, and 0187 – wireless device 110 receives Synchronization Signal Blocks (SSBs) of one or more cells including cells in different RATs such as a TN RAT (through a base station (read as second RAN node)) and an NTN RAT (through a satellite (read as first RAN node)));
receiving a second set of synchronization signals from a second RAN node (see figures 3, 4, and 6 step 508 and, for example, paragraphs 0025, 0031 lines 1-12, 0078, 0110 lines 1-3, 0186, and 0187 – wireless device 110 receives Synchronization Signal Blocks (SSBs) of one or more cells including cells in different RATs such as a TN RAT (through a base station (read as second RAN node)) and an NTN RAT (through a satellite (read as first RAN node));
determining that each of the first RAN node and the second RAN node are suitable (see
paragraphs 0010 (which defines what a suitable cell is) and 0180 – where an implication is disclosed that a suitable TN cell (i.e., base station – second RAN node) and NTN cell (i.e., satellite – first RAN node) have been found before the wireless device 110 selects or reselects
one of these cells);
autonomously determining that the first RAN node is associated with a satellite RAN and
the second RAN node is associated with a terrestrial RAN using locally available information (Applicant’s specification does not mention “autonomously determining” at all, therefore, the plain meaning has been given to this term for interpretation purposes and, in light of it, paragraph 0106 of Määttänen et al. disclose the UE processing cell selection information (e.g., in the form of a priority list) to determine PLMNs associated with each RAN node and using this information to determined network types (i.e., whether the first RAN node is a satellite RAN or the second RAN node is a terrestrial RAN). In order for the UE to use this priority list, it must be store locally at the UE in some kind of list or table for later use, reference, and processing to make the proper determination and since this determination is being done at the UE by the UE, it is considered to be autonomously determined. This interpretation is in accordance with paragraph 00037 of Applicant’s specification as it is the only paragraph in the specification that mentions locally available information. There is no disclosure in paragraph 00037 or in any other
paragraphs of the specification of how or when the locally available information is in the UE);
communicating a registration request to the second RAN node based at least in part on
the autonomous determination and a determination that one or more key performance indicator (KPI) values of the second set of synchronization signals exceeds a predetermined minimum (see figure 10 step 510, figure 11 step 608, and paragraphs 0098, 0110, and 0183-0194 – wireless device 110 prioritize and initiates the selection/reselection of the TN cell (i.e., second RAN node in the form of a base station) over the NTN cell (i.e., first RAN node in the form of a satellite) and see paragraph 0096-0100 - selection/reselection of the TN cell is also based on one or more KPI values (i.e., in the form of reference signal receive power (RSRP) and reference signal receive quality (RSRQ)) exceeding a minimum acceptable quality Qmin (i.e., predetermined minimum threshold).
PNG
media_image1.png
364
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
After the selection/reselection is completed, the wireless device is provided with user data hence, it is at the very least implicit or inherent, that some kind of registration request have been communicated to the TN cell by the wireless device 110 in order for the device 110 to be able
and allow to receive user data in the new selected/reselected TN cell).
Consider claim 33, and as applied to claim 30 above, Määttänen et al. further disclose wherein the operations further comprise storing locally a table associating public land mobile network (PLMN) identifiers with network types to determine whether RAN nodes are associated with terrestrial or satellite RANs (see paragraph 0106 where the UE receives a priority list that includes PLMN IDs used to prioritized TN cells (i.e., second RAN nodes in the form of base stations) over NTN cells (i.e., first RAN nodes in the form of satellites) hence PLMN IDs with network types are being used to determine whether RAN nodes are associated with terrestrial or satellite RANs and in order for the UE to use this priority list, it must be store locally at the UE in some kind of list or table for later use, reference, and processing to make the proper determination. This interpretation is in accordance with paragraph 00037 of Applicant’s specification as it is the only paragraph in the specification that mentions locally available information. There is no disclosure in paragraph 00037 or in any other paragraphs of the specification of “store locally a table” or even how or when the locally available information is in the UE. The broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and the prior art has been given to this limitation).
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.
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 21, 28, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Määttänen et al. (US 2023/0319661 A1) in view of Vogedes et al. (US 2024/0063894 A1).
Consider claims 21, 28, and 31, and as applied to claims 1, 27, and 30 above, Määttänen et al. show and disclose the claimed invention except that the autonomous determination is made without receiving network-directed prioritization parameters.
In the same field of endeavor, Vogedes et al. disclose procedures for initial NTN/TN cell selection including a procedure in which the UE leverage the use of stored information such as, for example, NTN/TN frequencies, NTN/TN cell parameters from previously detected cells, and relative UE location based on previous cell selections. Once a suitable cell is found , the UE may select it (see paragraph 0146 and 0148 - none of these examples of stored information include received network-directed prioritization parameters).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to relied solely on locally stored information for cell selection as disclosed by Vogedes et al. in the system, method, and medium disclosed by
Määttänen et al. in order to allow for future faster and efficient cell selection/reselection by the UE (see, for example, paragraph 0149 of Vogedes et al.).
Claims 22, 29, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Määttänen et al. (US 2023/0319661 A1) in view of Matolia et al. (US 2022/0232464 A1).
Consider claims 22, 29, and 32, and as applied to claims 1, 27, and 30 above, Määttänen et al. show and disclose the claimed invention except that the predetermined minimum threshold comprises a reference signal receive power (RSRP) value of -115 dBm.
In the same field of endeavor, Matolia et al. disclose using a predetermined minimum threshold value of a reference signal receive power (RSRP) of -115 dBm to prioritize selection of a home public land mobile network (HPLMN) (see paragraph 0073 lines 31-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a threshold value of a RSRP of -115 dBm as disclosed by Matolia et al. in the system disclosed by Määttänen et al. in order to ensure that the network meets a minimum quality requirement for selection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on September 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, page 2 of the remarks, that “Määttänen is directed to cell reselection priorities between terrestrial networks and non-terrestrial networks, where a wireless device receives a parameter from a network node that includes an indication to search for a terrestrial network. Per Määttänen, the NTN provides coverage for the wireless device and, once it communicates the terrestrial reselection parameter to the UE, it causes the UE to search for and prioritize terrestrial nodes for reselection. However, Määttänen fails to disclose the conditional prioritization based on minimum KPI thresholds that is now required by amended claim 1. While Määttänen describes rules for selecting between multiple candidate terrestrial nodes using offsets, those rules are applied to terrestrial cells as a general quality requirement, not as a conditional requirement for prioritizing terrestrial over non-terrestrial cells as recited in amended claim 1. This conditional aspect - where the registration request is communicated to the terrestrial RAN node based on both the network type determination AND the KPI threshold requirement - is absent in Määttänen.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument and with the characterization, by the Applicant, of the teachings disclosed by Määttänen et al.. As opposed to Applicant’s argument, Määttänen et al., as clearly explained in the rejection set forth above, do disclose selecting the terrestrial RAN node based on both the network type determination (i.e., is a terrestrial base station (RAN node)) and the KPI threshold requirement when Määttänen et al. disclose, on figure 10 step 510, figure 11 step 608, and paragraphs 0098, 0110, and 0183-0194, that the wireless device 110 prioritize and initiates the selection/reselection of the TN cell over the NTN cell (i.e., based on the network type) and, on paragraphs 0096-0100, that is also based on a determination that one or more key performance indicator (KPI) values of the second set of synchronization signals exceeds a predetermined minimum threshold (selection/reselection of the TN cell is also at least based on one or more KPI values (i.e., in the form of reference signal receive power (RSRP) and reference signal receive quality (RSRQ)) exceeding a minimum acceptable quality Qmin (i.e., predetermined minimum threshold)).
PNG
media_image1.png
364
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown above, the selection of the terrestrial RAN node is conditional to 1) being a terrestrial RAN node and 2) meeting a minimum quality requirement which meets the claimed language in claims 1, 27, and 30. After the selection/reselection is completed, the wireless device is provided with user data hence, it is at the very least implicit or inherent, that some kind of registration request have been communicated to the TN cell by the wireless device 110 in order for the device 110 to be able and allow to receive user data in the new selected/reselected TN cell.
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 Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) should be directed to Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez whose telephone number is (571)272-7915. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6:15 am to 4:15 pm EST.
SPE 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.
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.
Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez
R.P.G./rpg
/Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2642
May 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights