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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks
This Office action is considered fully responsive to the amendments filed 01/20/2026.
The previous objection to the specification is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 4-13, 15-22 under U.S.C. 102 or U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 20220030532 A1.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to claims 3 and 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 3 and 14 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 7-8, 12-13, 15-17, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R2-1915189 to Huawei [provided by Applicant] in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0030532 A1 to Hajir et al. (“Hajir”).
As to claims 1-2, 4-6, 7-8, see similar rejections to claims 12-13, 15-17, 18-19. The apparatus teaches the method.
As to claim 12, Huawei discloses a wireless device (page 1, UE) comprising a processing circuit (page 1, figs. 1 and 2, implicit from illustration of UEs as cellular phones known to have processors) adapted to: obtain location information associated with the wireless device and/or ephemeris data for one or more satellite cells (page 5, For idle/inactive mode UEs, frequency-specific SMTC configuration is transmitted by the network through system information. Since a satellite cell may be quite large, propagation delay would be different for UEs in different location. Therefore, the adjustment should be done by idle/inactive UEs themselves. UE could calculate the propagation delay difference (which is shown in Figure3 as deltaTp) with its own location information and satellite ephemeris); receive a measurement configuration to measure reference signals from the one or more satellite cell, the measurement configuration comprising at least one measurement window (page 4, For connected mode UEs in NTN system, UE-specific SMTC configuration is transmitted by the network through dedicated RRC signalling [1]. Therefore, the configuration could be done by the network considering the propagation delay between different service links, with the location information of UEs and neighbour satellites, to ensure the reference signal of the neighbour cells covered by the measurement window); and determine whether to select or skip a measurement window for the one or more satellite cells based on the location of the wireless device and/or the ephemeris data for the one or more satellite cells (page 5, UE could calculate the propagation delay difference (which is shown in Figure3 as deltaTp) with its own location information and satellite ephemeris and compensate the SMTC configuration, which make the measurement window delay by deltaTp).
Huawei does not expressly disclose skip a measurement window, wherein skipping the measurement window comprises deactivating a measurement window opportunity of the one or more satellite cells.
Hajir discloses at para. 0104 and Table 1: The WTRU 1130 may receive (be preconfigured with) multiple measurement configurations and associated activation/deactivation criteria for multiple satellites, [para. 0003: The WTRU may activate and deactivate each of the plurality of measurement configurations over time in accordance with the activation/deactivation criteria] including current LEO satellites for which the WTRU 1130 is currently in the coverage area (e.g., LEO satellite 1101) and upcoming satellites for which the WTRU 1130 will be in the coverage area at a future time (e.g., LEO satellites 1102 and 1103). The measurement configurations may be provided to the WTRU 1130 by the GEO satellite 1105 and/or a current LEO satellite 1101. The upcoming satellites are known because the trajectory of the LEO satellites 1101, 1102, 1103 over time are known (the satellites have predictable path of movement), and the relative location of the WTRU 1130 may be treated as fixed (at least over a longer period of time).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the deactivation of Hajir into the invention of Huawei. The suggestion/motivation would have been to communicate in a non-terrestrial network comprising a plurality of satellites (Hajir, para. 0003). Including the deactivation of Hajir into the invention of Huawei was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Hajir.
As to claim 13, Huawei further discloses the wireless device of claim 12, wherein the measurement configuration comprises a list of links and propagation delays (page 4, For connected mode UEs in NTN system, UE-specific SMTC configuration is transmitted by the network through dedicated RRC signalling [1]. Therefore, the configuration could be done by the network considering the propagation delay between different service links (figure 3, DL symbol timing as received at UE from gNB1/L1 (i.e. PCI) after proption delay Tp1, DL symbol timing as received from gNB2/L2, after propagation delay Tp2), with the location information of UEs and neighbour satellites, to ensure the reference signal of the neighbour cells covered by the measurement window).
Huawei does not expressly disclose a list of PCIs and measurement windows.
Hajir discloses the WTRU may receive a handover command towards a group of PCIs (associated with the target satellite) (para. 0116) and para. 0104, Table 1, Measurement Activation/Deactivation Applicable Times.
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the PCIs and times of Hajir into the invention of Huawei. The suggestion/motivation would have been to communicate in a non-terrestrial network comprising a plurality of satellites (Hajir, para. 0003). Including the PCIs and times of Hajir into the invention of Huawei was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Hajir.
As to claim 15, Huawei and Hajir further discloses the wireless device of claim 12, wherein determining whether to select the measurement window for the one or more satellite cells is further based on a direction of travel of one or more satellites (Huawei, page 5, moving of satellites (i.e. movement implies a direction is involved)….UE could calculate the propagation delay difference (which is shown in Figure3 as deltaTp) with its own location information and satellite ephemeris (i.e. position) and compensate the SMTC configuration, which make the measurement window delay by deltaTp). In addition, as the primary reference is used to teach the instant claim limitations, the same suggestion/motivation of claim 12 applies.
As to claim 16, Huawei and Hajir further discloses the wireless device of claim 12, wherein determining whether to select a measurement window for the one or more satellite cells is further based on a speed of one or more satellites (Huawei, page 5, moving of satellites (i.e. movement implies a speed is involved)…UE could calculate the propagation delay difference (which is shown in Figure3 as deltaTp) with its own location information and satellite ephemeris (i.e. position) and compensate the SMTC configuration, which make the measurement window delay by deltaTp). In addition, as the primary reference is used to teach the instant claim limitations, the same suggestion/motivation of claim 12 applies.
As to claim 17, Huawei and Hajir further discloses the wireless device of claim 12, wherein the measurement configuration comprises a Synchronization Signal Block Measurement Time Configuration, SMTC (Huawei, page 4, For connected mode UEs in NTN system, UE-specific SMTC configuration is transmitted by the network through dedicated RRC signalling [1]), and a reference signal comprises a Synchronization Signal Block, SSB (page 4, SSB from neighboring cell). In addition, as the primary reference is used to teach the instant claim limitations, the same suggestion/motivation of claim 12 applies.
As to claim 18, Huawei does not further disclose the wireless device of claim 12, wherein the measurement configuration comprises a physical cell identity, PCI.
Hajir discloses at para. 0098: At Time T1, the WTRU may be served and receive measurement configurations from the spot beam with PCI 805/SSB 813 from satellite 820.
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the PCI of Hajir into the invention of Huawei. The suggestion/motivation would have been to communicate in a non-terrestrial network comprising a plurality of satellites (Hajir, para. 0003). Including the PCI of Hajir into the invention of Huawei was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Hajir.
As to claim 19, Huawei and Hajir further discloses the wireless device of claim 12, wherein the processing circuit is adapted to measure the reference signal on the one or more satellite cells during the measurement window (Huawei, page 4, For connected mode UEs in NTN system, UE-specific SMTC configuration is transmitted by the network through dedicated RRC signalling [1]. Therefore, the configuration could be done by the network considering the propagation delay between different service links, with the location information of UEs and neighbour satellites, to ensure the reference signal of the neighbour cells covered by the measurement window). In addition, as the primary reference is used to teach the instant claim limitations, the same suggestion/motivation of claim 12 applies.
Claim(s) 9-11, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R2-1915189 to Huawei [provided by Applicant] in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0030532 A1 to Hajir et al. (“Hajir”) and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2024/0063894 A1 to VOGEDES et al. (“Vogedes”).
As to claims 9-11, see similar rejections to claims 20-22. The apparatus teaches the methods.
As to claim 20, Huawei and Hajir does not expressly disclose the wireless device of claim 12, wherein the processing circuit is adapted to transmit, to a network node, a message comprising at least one measurement associated with the reference signal measured during the measurement window.
Vogedes discloses at fig. 16, UE sends to Cell A a Meas Report after scanning for SSBs of Cell B and C, which at para. 0237, contain associated RSRP/RSRQ of each cell.
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the report of Vogedes into the invention of Huawei and Hajir. The suggestion/motivation would have been to manage NCRT (Vogedes, para. 0233). Including the report of Vogedes into the invention of Huawei was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Vogedes.
As to claim 21, Huawei and Hajir does not expressly disclose wireless device of claim 12, wherein the processing circuit is adapted to transmit, to the network node, a first indication that at least one satellite cell was not measured during the measurement window.
Vogedes discloses at fig. 16, UE sends to Cell A a Meas Report after scanning for SSBs of Cell B and C, which at para. 0237, contain associated RSRP/RSRQ of each cell, but not Cell B’s NCGI/ECGI (i.e. this cell is not measured in this context during this period). At para. 0239-0240, UE has found out new cell’s NCGI(s), and reports to the serving cell NTN node, the global CID(s), (i.e. cell measured in subsequent window).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the report of Vogedes into the invention of Huawei and Hajir. The suggestion/motivation would have been to manage NCRT (Vogedes, para. 0233). Including the report of Vogedes into the invention of Huawei and Hajir was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Vogedes.
As to claim 22, Huawei and Hajir does not expressly disclose the wireless device of claim 12, wherein the wireless device is adapted to transmit, to the network node, a second indication that at least one satellite cell was measured during the measurement window and did not meet a minimum threshold.
Vogedes discloses at fig. 16, UE sends to Cell A a Meas Report after scanning for SSBs of Cell B and C, which at para. 0237, contain associated RSRP/RSRQ of each cell, but not Cell B’s NCGI/ECGI (i.e. minimum threshold being NCGI/ECGI being included). At para. 0239-0240, UE has found out new cell’s NCGI(s), and reports to the serving cell NTN node, the global CID(s), (i.e. cell was measured during the and did not meet a minimum threshold in prior report, as NCGI sent now).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the report of Vogedes into the invention of Huawei and Hajir. The suggestion/motivation would have been to manage NCRT (Vogedes, para. 0233). Including the report of Vogedes into the invention of Huawei and Hajir was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Vogedes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 14 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR J GHOWRWAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5691. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, ASAD NAWAZ can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
/OMAR J GHOWRWAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights