DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. In particular, this Application is the national stage application of an international application that claims a domestic benefit to a US provisional application filed on 8 Jan 2021.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements, received on 3 Jul 2023 and 26 Sept 2024, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 8, 10, 13, 17, 19, 20, 35, 42, 44, 51, 53, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lucky (US 20190245614).
Regarding claims 1 and 35, Lucky teaches a method, by a wireless device, and the wireless device for determining cell coverage area provided by one or more satellites, the method comprising:
receiving, from a network node, information at the wireless device (Lucky, ¶¶119, 247 – UT receives neighbor cell list [NCL] from a ground network),
wherein the received information comprises:
a reference satellite elevation angle along with information from which an associated reference cell coverage area or an associated reference satellite beam footprint can be determined (Lucky, ¶¶126, 236 – NCL includes beam pointing angle, which may be an elevation angle of a beam with reference to the body frame or motion of the satellite; Lucky, ¶130 – the beam pointing angle is transmitted “along with” the other information found in table 1, which includes a reference time of beam information found in the BIB4); and
satellite ephemeris data (Lucky, ¶¶110-111 – BIB4, which carries the NCL, also includes ephemeris information); and
calculating, for a plurality of times, by the wireless device using the received information, a location of the cell coverage area provided by the one or more satellites. Lucky, ¶¶247, 250 (user terminal determines a satellite’s illumination region [i.e. coverage area] based on information in neighbor cell list/BIB4); Lucky, ¶¶112, 151 (BIB4, with the NCL, may be transmitted every 2.56 second, enabling the UT to determine an illumination region “a plurality of times”).
Regarding claims 8 and 42, Lucky also teaches wherein the received information comprises information regarding a respective beam produced by each of the one or more satellites to provide the cell coverage area. Lucky, ¶125, 131 (beam list of NCL provides information for all beams of a satellite).
Regarding claims 10 and 44, Lucky also teaches wherein the information regarding a respective beam produced by each of the one or more satellites to provide the cell coverage area comprises an angle of the beam. Lucky, ¶¶125-126 (beam information includes a pointing angle of all the beams on the beam list).
Regarding claim 13, Lucky also teaches wherein the received information comprises at least one of: one or more cell coverage area descriptions with associated time stamps; a center location of the cell coverage area; a solid angle of a satellite beam representing a non-interfered cell coverage area; a solid angle of a plurality of satellite beams whose combined footprint represents a non-interfered cell area; a solid angle of each satellite beam in a plurality of beams whose combined footprint represents a non-interfered cell coverage area; a direction of a satellite beam, whose footprint represents a non-interfered cell coverage area; a direction of a bundle of satellite beams whose combined footprint represents a non- interfered cell coverage area; and a direction of each satellite beam in a bundle of beams whose combined footprint represents a non-interfered cell coverage area. Lucky, ¶134 (direction of motion of each satellites beams) or alternatively Lucky, ¶122 (GPS reference time in NCL is a time stamp).
Regarding claims 17 and 51, Lucky also teaches determining a time the wireless device can expect to be covered by a cell defined by the cell coverage area. Lucky, ¶¶119, 129 (NCL indicates the start time and duration of when a beam will be ON [i.e. when a UT can expect to communicate with it]).
Regarding claims 19 and 53, Lucky also teaches determining which of a plurality of cells may be suitable for a certain mobility operation. Lucky, ¶111 and figure 23 (UT uses NCL to determine the best candidate cell for reselection).
Regarding claims 20 and 54, Lucky also teaches using the cell coverage area in effecting a cell selection procedure. Lucky, ¶111 and figure 23 (UT uses NCL to determine the best candidate cell for reselection).
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 3 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucky (of record) in view of Thangarasa (US 20210367725).
Regarding claims 3 and 37, Lucky teaches the method of Claim 1, the wireless device of claim 35, and satellite information that “varies with time” (Lucky, ¶¶112, 151 - BIB4, with the NCL, may be transmitted every 2.56 second, enabling the UT to determine an illumination region “a plurality of times”), but does not explicitly teach “wherein the received information specifies how a shape of the cell coverage area provided by the one or more satellites.” However, Thangarasa teaches a UE receiving coverage area information from a network device. Thangarasa, ¶36 (UE obtains LCAI, which includes coverage area information). Coverage area information includes the shape of a coverage area. Id. at ¶¶89-90. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include the shape of a coverage area, as taught by Thangarasa, within the BIB4, taught by Lucky, in order to assist the UE with neighboring cell detection when moving from one network operator to another. Id. at ¶86.
Claims 4 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucky (of record) in view of Noerpel (US 10,355,778).
Regarding claims 4 and 38, Lucky teaches the method of Claim 1, the wireless device of claim 35, and satellite information that “varies with time” (Lucky, ¶¶112, 151 - BIB4, with the NCL, may be transmitted every 2.56 second, enabling the UT to determine an illumination region “a plurality of times”), but does not explicitly teach “determining, based on the received information, how a shape of the cell coverage area provided by the one or more satellites varies in time.” However, Noerpel teaches how a satellite’s cell pattern changes as it move across the earth’s crust. Noerpel, 8:61-9:3. The shape of the cell pattern changes based on a beam’s angle of inclination the satellite’s distance from earth. Ibid. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to enable the User Terminal, taught by Lucky, to determine the shape of the coverage area, as taught by Noerpel, using the information provided in the BIB4, in order to provide seamless service to the terminal while located within the coverage of the satellite. Noerpel, 8:16-31.
Claims 5 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucky in view of Noerpel and further in view of Thangarasa (all of record).
Regarding claims 5 and 39, the combination of Lucky and Noerpel teaches the method of Claim 4, the device of claim 38, and wherein the received information includes . . . [a shape description] of the cell coverage area provided by one or more satellites at respective times. Noerpel, 9:28-33 (coverage area is a hexagon, where each has different cell centers and vertices). The combination of Lucky and Noerpel does not explicitly teach “a plurality of shape descriptions.” However, Thangarasa teaches a plurality of shapes for a coverage area. Thangarasa, ¶89 (e.g. ellipsoid, polygon, arc, etc.). At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to allow for multi-shaped coverage areas, as taught by Thangarasa, by the satellite-based network, taught by the combination of Lucky and Noerpel, in order to fit the cell to a specific geographic region, such as a city or airport. Ibid.
Claims 9 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucky (of record) in view of Ma (US 20230224725).
Regarding claims 9 and 43, Lucky teaches the method of Claim 8, the device of claim 42, and wherein the information regarding a respective beam produced by each of the one or more satellites to provide the cell coverage area. Lucky, ¶¶110,131 (BIB4 provides information on the beams of the satellites). Lucky does not explicitly teach its beam information “comprises a size and shape of a footprint of the respective beam at the surface of the earth at a respective elevation angle or a respective time.” However, Ma teaches beam information that includes the size, shape, and orientation of each beam. Ma, ¶116. The UE determines the footprint of each beam based on the beam’s configuration. Id. at ¶118, 124, 129. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art define the shape and size of a beam’s footprint, as taught by Ma, using the information received in the BIB4, taught by Lucky, in order to improve beam selection by the UE. Ma, ¶67 (last sentence) and ¶68.
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 BENJAMIN S LAMONT whose telephone number is (571)270-7514 and email address is benjamin.lamont@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 for using EFS or mail, but not email to authorize electronic communications). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am to 3pm EST.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/Benjamin Lamont/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights