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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 59-78 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Applicant contends that MAHALINGAMA et al. (WO 2019/195457 A1) does not disclose “receiving, by a user equipment, a notification indicative of a switch from a first platform to a second platform”
Examiner has further clarified Mahalingama to disclose receiving, by a user equipment (see receiving ate WTRU, fig. 9), a notification indicative of a switch (see 920, RRC reconnection reconfiguration, containing “handover message” [0171], here the handover involves moving from first to target).
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.
Claim(s) 59-62, 64-71, 74-77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAHALINGAMA et al. (WO 2019/195457 A1) in view of Shen et al. (CN 111342925 A).
Regarding claims 59 and 60, MAHALINGAMA discloses the method and apparatus comprising:
receiving, by a user equipment (see receiving ate WTRU, fig. 9), a notification indicative of a switch (see 920, RRC reconnection reconfiguration, containing “handover message” [0171], here the handover involves moving from first to target) from a first platform to a second platform (see Source Cell NTN 903 to Target Cell NTN 90); calculating, by the user equipment, a timing advance (timing advance estimation, [0012]) for use with the second platform (timing advance represents change in uplink timing relative to the current or new uplink timing, see fig. 9 handover to target NTN); and accessing, by the user equipment, the second platform after the switch to the second platform (see fig. 9, “complete” connection to target NTN), the accessing based on at least the calculated timing advance (“TA may be estimated during handover” [0168]);
MAHALINGAMA does not best disclose however Shen best discloses wherein the timing advance is calculated based on a timing difference between signals from the first platform and the second platform (see paragraphs 9-11, page 3, note first satellite and target satellite as first and second platform and see “time difference” and “advance time”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of MAHALINGAMA with that of Shen. Doing so would conform to well-known techniques in the field of invention.
Regarding claim 75, MAHALINGAMA discloses a apparatus comprising:
at least one processor (see processor [0055]); and
at least one memory including computer program code (see memory containing code [0054]), the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to at least:
serve at least a user equipment (see WTRU 902 in fig. 9); and
broadcast a notification to the user equipment (see “broadcast” SIB to WTRU in fig. 9 and [0145]), the notification indicative of a switch from the apparatus to a second platform to enable the user equipment to access the second platform after the switch (see [0170], “. If the target cell broadcasts the UTC formatted absolute on-air time in a SIB, corresponding to the {SFN, SF} carrying that SIB, the WTRU may estimate the propagation delay between itself and the target satellite”, therefore target-second platform is indicative of the switch via the communication here).
MAHALINGAMA does not best disclose however Shen best discloses to send, to the user equipment, platform information identifying synchronization signals of the second platform (see synchronization para. 11-12, page 3),
Determine a timing difference between signals from the first platform and the second platform and the second platform for calculating a timing advance for communication with the second platform after the switch (see paragraphs 9-11, page 3, note first satellite and target satellite as first and second platform and see “time difference” and “advance time”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of MAHALINGAMA with that of Shen. Doing so would conform to well-known techniques in the field of invention.
Regarding claims 61 & 76, MAHALINGAMA discloses the apparatuses of claim 60 and75, wherein the first platform comprises one or more of the following: an airborne platform, a spaceborne platform, and a high altitude platform station,
and/or wherein the second platform comprises one or more of the following: an airborne platform, a spaceborne platform, and a high-altitude platform station (see fig. 9. Where source and target platforms are NTN, Non-terrestrial Satellite).
Regarding claims 62 and 77, MAHALINGAMA discloses the apparatuses of claim 60 and 75, wherein at least a portion of a first base station comprises (see fig. 4, which describes each NTN satellite as an airborne base station), or is comprised in, the first platform (see source NTN in fig. 9), and/or wherein at least a portion of a second base station (see fig. 4, which describes each NTN satellite as an airborne base station) comprises, or is comprised in, the second platform (see target NTN in fig. 9).
Regarding claim 64, MAHALINGAMA discloses the apparatus of claim 60, wherein the apparatus is further caused to receive location information, wherein the location information includes a first location of the first platform and a second location of the second platform (see claim 2, “determining the location of the base station based on the received system information” locations of platform is received in system information as notoriously known in the art).
Regarding claim 65, MAHALINGAMA discloses the apparatus of claim 60, wherein the apparatus is further caused to determine a location of the apparatus, in response to received notification and/or the received location information (see [0177], “satellite location/trajectory”).
Regarding claim 66, MAHALINGAMA discloses the apparatus of claim 65, wherein the location of the apparatus is determined based on at least geolocation circuitry (see geolocation sensor [0062]) at the apparatus (see GPS assisted NTN, GNSS services [0177]).
Regarding claim 67, MAHALINGAMA discloses the apparatus of claim 66, wherein the timing advanced (see estimated TA, predicted TA, just TA are interchangeable with the term timing offset [0172]) is calculated based on at least the location of the apparatus and at least one of the first location of the first platform and the second location of the second platform (see [0176], “based on the WTRU location and/or satellite location”).
Regarding claim 68, MAHALINGAMA discloses the apparatus of claim 60, wherein the apparatus is further caused to receive a resource allocation for the apparatus accessing a physical random access control channel after the switch to the second platform, wherein the access of the second platform is further based on at least the received resource allocation (see [0173, “configured PRACH time resource” with adjusted timing therefore with handover).
Regarding claim 69, MAHALINGAMA discloses the apparatus of claim 68, wherein after the switch, the second platform uses a different physical cell identifier than the first platform (see each source and candidate send to WTRU “system information”, wherein system information or SIBs contain Cell ID, specifically in 5G system information is in SIB 1.).
Regarding claim 70, MAHALINGAMA discloses the apparatus of claim 60, wherein the apparatus is further caused to receive a switching time, wherein the access of the second platform is further based on at least the received switching time (see [0168], “ At the time of a handover, since the WTRU may not have measured the target cell, the WTRU must obtain synchronization and cell timing of the target just before transmitting the uplink access message to the target.” Therefore timing at handover-switching).
Regarding claim 71, MAHALINGAMA discloses the apparatus of claim 70, wherein after the switch, the second platform uses a same physical cell identifier as the first platform, and wherein the switching time comprises a subframe number, and/or wherein the switching time is received from the first platform (see [0170], “after receiving handover command (e.g., RRC CONNECTION RECONFIGURATION) from the source may further delay the handover completion”, here handover command delays the time for the handover and thus is a switching time).
Regarding claim 74, MAHALINGAMA discloses the apparatus of claim 60, wherein the apparatus comprises, or is comprised in, a user equipment (see WTRU in fig. 9).
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.
Claim(s) 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAHALINGAMA et al. (WO 2019/195457 A1) in view of Frerking et al. (US 2016/0119938 A1).
Regarding claim 63, MAHALINGAMA does not specifically disclose however Frerking discloses the apparatus of claim 60, wherein a first base station is terrestrial and accesses, via a first repeater link, the first platform, and/or wherein a second base station is terrestrial and accesses, via a second repeater link, the second platform (see fig. 3, note two satellite platforms connected relay to at least two base stations or more, see [0023] “non-terrestrial relay”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Frerking with that of Mahalingama. Doing so would conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 72-73, 78 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 72, the prior art does not disclose singly or combination that the apparatus is further caused to receive an indication of an addition or a deletion of an inter-platform link between the first platform and the second platform, wherein the timing advance calculation is further based on a change in delay associated with the addition or the deletion. Wherein the platforms are Satellite and Non-Terrestrial or another combination type.
Regarding claim 73, the prior art does not disclose singly or combination that apparatus is further caused to receive information about the second platform, wherein the received information includes the physical cell identifier, a synchronization signal block timing index, and/or a synchronization signal block measurement timing configuration time shift, wherein the timing advance calculation is further based on a synchronization signal block timing difference between the second platform and the first platform.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 K. WILFORD SHAHEED whose telephone number is (469) 295-9175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 am-6pm; CST; ALT Friday. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The examiner’s Supervisor, Jinsong Hu, can be reached at (571)272-3965, where attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KHALID W SHAHEED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643